Cost Basis Per Share

Caryl,

Thanks for your comments.

I'll buy your explanation about why current value items and cost items appear in the same column. It's a confusing report design but sometimes saving column space is more important than clarity.

However, if Cost Basis includes commissions and Price doesn't then my Cost Basis/Shares value should be greater than, not less than, the listed Price. The difference remains unresolved, but I don't really care at this point because the Price number seems to be close enough for my purposes. Using a technique I recently learned from Ken Blake of this group, I now state that I have no further interest in this issue.

However, I remain interested in any ideas about how to correct the hundreds of incorrect lot cost bases in my Quicken DB. These are huge discrepancies, e.g. some values differ by an order of magnitude from the correct value. When for spinoffs Quicken incorrectly subtracted a fixed dollar amount per share from every lot, rather than a fixed percentage of the cost of each lot, it often leaves a drastically low, perhaps even negative, cost basis for the cheaper lots. It amazes me that other users haven't raised the roof on this issue.

Jerry

I have found that the average cost per share includes any commission paid for that lot, and the quote/price figure is the actual cost of one share, without any commission added. That is why dividing the lot by the number of shares gives you a different figure than that in the quote/price column.

I am not sure, but maybe because the quote is the current value and the price in the name of the column refers to the price that you paid for the stock.

We do a lot of stock trading and if we want exact figures we go to the websites of our brokerage firms, where we know that the figures are correct to the penny.

Caryl

Reply to
Jerry Boyle
Loading thread data ...

Frankly, I see no reason for you to apologize about the way your posts are received by other's "newsreaders".

In the many years you have posted here, I've had no problem with your posts, and I don't recall anyone else complaining about them.

More importantly: unless you are somehow intentionly not respecting good newsgroup posting rules (for which I've seen no evidence); I don't think the complaint you got was justified.

The basic need is to communicate; not to attempt to adhere to artificial standards. I have never had any problem with your posts (including replies) not being clear.

Reply to
John Pollard

Caryl, John:

It never hurts to apologize, even if no apology is needed. I prefer to err on the safe side. Rest assured that I was not wracked with guilt over the incident :-)

And the info you (Caryl) provided was useful. I've been puzzled for quite some time about why some of my replies don't quote properly. Now I know to check to see if it's always replies to Google posts that are implicated.

Both Google and Windows Mail, which I use, receive just criticism as being sub-par newsreaders. But I see no compelling reason for you or me or anyone else to switch if they're adequate for our purposes.

Still, my improperly formatted replies are at least a minor annoyance to subsequent responders, even if they haven't previously complained about them. And if there's any easy way to fix the problem then it's worth fixing.

Jerry

No need to apologize. I did not mean to sound defensive--I was just trying to explain how I post to this newsgroup.

More importantly, I hope you find a satisfactory answer to your Quicken problem.

Caryl

Reply to
Jerry Boyle

Of course you're not going to complain about my posts - you're using Outlook Express, which is also a piece of cr*p.

Please get a decent newsreader immediately :-)

Reply to
Jerry Boyle

FWIW I think I have. Thanks for your concern.

Reply to
Jerry Boyle

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.