Proper financial software

Recently, I did a heck of a lot of trading in my sister's taxable account, so I thought that it might advantageous to get software that would determine whether it would be better to use actual cost or average cost to compute capital gains. I've been disappointed that most, if not all, of the programs suffer from the deficiencies described below. I'd be reluctant to trust their calculations. Are there portfolio management programs that do not suffer from the problems described below? The comments are about FundManger, similar comments apply to other programs.

-------------

  1. The total portfolio value is off by $.06 (too high). This is due to the incorrect rounding of the market value for each security. Market values are not to be rounded, they are always TRUNCATED to 2 digits to the right of the decimal mark. You can see this at the Fidelity web site. Such incorrect rounding accounts for $.05 of the error, the additional error of $.01 results from the adding of the security values.
  2. When a transaction is entered, IF both the number and shares and the value are given, the price is irrelevant only of interest as an historical item. It is incorrect to compute the price if the user manually enters the price, or the price is downloaded from wherever. For example, on 16 Sept 2005, the NAV of FSPTX used for a purchase was .54. The amount purchased was $.97 resulting in the purchase of .016 shares. Fund Manager displays the price as .63. Manually correcting the price does not stick.

--

formatting link
See Howard Kaikow's web site.

> > > > > > > > >
Reply to
Howard Kaikow
Loading thread data ...

I now believe that there is not an industry standard for rounding dollars. There should be. As recently as 24 Nov 2006, I did a transaction at Janus. Amount was ROUNDED UP, where Fido would have TRUNCATED. Ditto for trades at AIM in 2005.

Reply to
Howard Kaikow

snip

I disagree! The unit cost is relevant because this will be used to compute gain or loss on ultimate disposal. The equation Value = unit cost X number of shares MUST be valid. Your method can result in inaccuracies.

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see your problem. If you received 0.016 shares and paid $0.97, the per share price is $60.63, not $61.54. Check the math! Lanny K. Williams, CPA Nawarat, Williams & Co., Ltd. Income Tax Services for Expatriate Americans

Reply to
L K Williams

Dear esteemed Moderator,

Did this slip through the cracks or is it a forgery?

Moderator: I mistook it for a tax question when it is really a computer mathematics question. At least it is not spam.

Reply to
Ernie Klein

If you're talking about trading stocks or bonds, you don't use the average cost. Mutual funds, it's another ballgame. ChEAr$, Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

Reply to
Harlan Lunsford

I am not affecting the calculation. The NAV is THE historical price which cannot be derived from the other values, so it needs to be saved Neither the NAV nor the cost per share, for a given transaction is relevant for calculations, but the NAV has historical value.

Reply to
Howard Kaikow

It is a tax question, in the end, because certain programs are miscalculating capital gains values, but that's for anothe rthread. In this thread, I was just looking for affordable software recommendations. I called the IRS yesterday to discuss the tax implication. I expect that tey will return my call today. After I speak to the IRS, I'll describe the capital gains issue in another thread.

Reply to
Howard Kaikow

Found what I wanted.

Section 1.1012-1 of 26 CFR Ch, 1 (4-1-06 Edition), on page

39, right-hand column gives an example using rounding "to the nearest cent". So Fidelity is doing it right and several programs are doing it wrong.
Reply to
Howard Kaikow

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.