market value graph is wrong

just as a followup - after going thru all the stocks and looking at each Detail view, it seems that the scale is off.... I mean resting the cursor changes to the + on the peaks close to the grid lines, and the value displayed is one entire scale range off. ie - the + shows $22k, and the horizontal scale grid line shows $21k ?

ok - this is weird - I took my EA and EMC securities, and experimented with them both again. The experiments had the same results...

EMC - single account, and only has 2 entries: the BOT & the split - no Divx recorded.

If I edit the split entry for a 1:1 (non-split), the text screen shows 100sh @ $11.68 = $1168 and the graph is correct showing $1168 at the far end of the line.

If I edit the split entry for the 2:1 split, the text screen shows 200sh @ $11.68 = $2336 and the graph now shows $4843 at the far end of the line !!!

I can't see any logic that would result in the graph of $4843... Tried with maybe 300sh x ?? or other various error combos, but can't see the logic of what might be happening. This is very weird -

"Phil Schuman" wrote in message news:e6lNg.272$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...

Why don't you try deleting the original transaction and re-entering it?

OR, since the OP states that there's only 2 transactions ... delete them both & re-enter.

db

ok - just tried that - deleted both the original BOT and the Split - for EMC - then did the "Enter Transactions" - one at a time. Well.... no change ! The 200 shares after the split still show $4800 on the graph vs the $2300 on the market value ! hmmm - maybe I'll try playing with the transaction dates, and see if there is some window that has some internal glitch/problem. else - I give up :(

"Phil Schuman" wrote

One other thought.

Rename QDATA.QPH (where QDATA is the name of your Quicken data), run Quicken, download historical prices. Then see if the results are different.

ok - I'll try anything.... but it's not the peaks and valleys that are wrong, but rather the basic numerical values.

So - even if the prices were weird - I looked at the historical and they seemed ok -

I think I'll try and print the graph of the price history, and then print the graph of the market value. For the past couple of years, they should be the same peaks and valleys - just different numbers.

I tried it with a test copy, and it seemed to clear up at least EMC. Also - had several mis-matched splits that popped up. So, not sure if the QPH file itself, or the updating of splits fixes things. I'll try it again tomorrow in a more methodical manner.

well John - we're getting close :) Renaming QPH and re-downloading historical prices appears to have fixed 7 stocks that had weird graph values compared to their market values. But - 5 stocks still have weird graphs.... all high flyers with old splits ERTS, MSFT, QCOM, SBUX, and YHOO Any other shots in the dark for this last band of rebels ? I don't really need it fixed, as I just look at the graphs for trends vs their actual numbers, but it's just the principle...

"Phil Schuman" wrote

I'm getting into long shot country now; but I think there was some bug reported here some time ago that affected securities with splits and spin-offs ... or something along those lines. I think either Walt Bilofsky and or Tom Young detailed the problem. I'm not even sure it would pertain to what you're seeing, since I don't recall the details, but it's all I can think of at the moment. Maybe you can find something in the archives, or maybe one of them will clarify.

Accounting is a record of input and transaction. Deleting is not allowed when following accounting standards...

When one is keeping the financial records for a company/association/group/etc. that practice is in place because it raises a question of "changing history after the fact" and the possible result of misleading others who have relied upon the older records.

Quicken is, in the VAST majority of cases, for personal use.

Eraser have always been allowed, and used, in personal recordkeepping.

And the delete key is no different.

BTW, while it's rare, even the large banks occasionally delete erroneously posted transactions in customer account rather than reversing them. Sometimes a delete followed by the "what shoulda been post" is actually the clearest explanation of events.

db former Wells Fargo Audit VP

When one is keeping the financial records for a company/association/group/etc. that practice is in place because it raises a question of "changing history after the fact" and the possible result of misleading others who have relied upon the older records.

Quicken is, in the VAST majority of cases, for personal use.

Erasers have always been allowed, and used, in personal recordkeepping.

And the delete key is no different.

BTW, while it's rare, even the large banks occasionally delete erroneously posted transactions in customer account rather than reversing them. Sometimes a delete followed by the "what shoulda been post" is actually the clearest explanation of events.

db former Wells Fargo Audit VP

danbrown trolled :

used to be a vp, now he's a pathetic internet troll. right. and i used to be the king of spain.

bill

"KBH" wrote

A standard that would prevent someone from producing correct reports from their financial data would not be much of a standard.

Quicken is personal financial software, not accounting software; and we are users of that software, only occasionally, and coincidentally, accountants.

Used to be king of spain. Now you're an anal-retentive self-important, blowhard idiot with your head firmly inserted into yourself.

db

Hi, KBH.

Bookkeepers are human. Mistakes do occur. And when they are discovered, they often must be corrected. How?

"Draw a single non-obliterating line through the incorrect entry, write the correct entry immediately above it, and initial the change."

Those were the instructions that I learned in accounting and auditing classes in college over 50 years ago. And it still applies today in manually-kept books and records. In the centuries before computers, we always kept permanent records in pen and ink (remember those?), never in pencil, so erasure was impossible - or very nearly impossible. Even "ink eradicator" and "Wite-out" left tell-tale evidence that a "permanent" entry had been changed. And these entries were kept on pages in bound books so that there was no good or easy way to change or remove a single entry from between those before and after it.

In one's personal records, for one's own use, there was no need to be so persnickety. But in a company or other organization, where anyone other than the bookkeeper himself/herself would be relying on the entries, strict standards were required.

Nowadays, Quicken and other computer programs make it easy to delete an entry - correct or not - so completely that no one can tell that it was ever there. That is why I've said several times in this newsgroup that Quicken is a great program for personal recordkeeping, but NOT for "third-party" accounting. That's my own terminology for records that are to be relied on by third parties. "First-party" accounting would be where I keep my own records for my own information, just as I keep my own checkbook and can make it as messy as I like because nobody sees it but me. "Second-party" accounting would be where I keep records for you and nobody relies on the records but you and me; we must trust each other, but outsiders are not involved. "Third-party" accounting is where I keep your records and you present reports based on those to a bank to borrow money, or to a prospective buyer or investor in your company, or to the IRS as a part of your tax returns.

For third-party accounting, erasures or deletions should be allowed only with a clear audit trail. Quicken allows erasures and deletions without such a trail, so it is not appropriate for keeping records on which third parties need to rely.

But for my own records for my own use, Quicken is a very good tool. And sometimes, deletion of an incorrect entry is entirely proper and the best way to handle an error - or just to change my mind.

RC

Yeah, there are a couple of good responses to my comment...

The investor portfolio accounting software that I develop has a Backup file command and an Install Backup file command. So if mistakes are made but found before Backup then the set of backup files could be installed to start over from a previous point. That gives just a short time-frame opportunity to avoid bad entries...

But once the mistakes are backed-up then both sets of files have the mistakes. In that case just make a same date same-amount counter-balancing transaction and the situation is obvious. And there's no problem because the software never makes mistakes and never fails to handle difficult situations...

Yeah, there are a couple of good responses to my comment...

The investor portfolio accounting software that I develop has a Backup file command and an Install Backup file command. So if mistakes are made but found before Backup then the set of backup files could be installed to start over from a previous point. That gives just a short time-frame opportunity to avoid bad entries...

But once the mistakes are backed-up then both sets of files have the mistakes. In that case just make a same date same-amount counter-balancing transaction and the situation is obvious. And there's no problem because the software never makes mistakes and never fails to handle difficult situations...