average cost basis differs from brokerage

Jon Foster

Both Schwab and Vanguard average cost basis cals differs from what Quicken produces.  Has anyone else noticed this?

q_lurker

a)  You are going to need to provide further information including what Quicken you are using and possibly more specific data as to the differences.  How much buying and selling has been done?  Div reinvestment?  

b)  The only issue I am aware of relating to average cost basis errors seems to relate to consequences of converting shares from one class to another (Mutual Fund Conversion or Corporate Acquisition - stock for stock).  Comments I saw were from several years ago (and older Quicken versions), so I do not know if anything has changed or been corrected in more recent versions.  (Search box using 'Average Cost Basis' should reveal some of those prior discussions).   

Rocket J Squirrel

In some cases, Quicken doesn't have enough information to present the true basis of securities. For example, individual bonds subject to premium amortization for tax reporting purposes. The brokerage will present "adjusted basis" which will be different from your original "cost basis". Quicken has no idea the basis has been adjusted.

If this doesn't apply to your situation, do as q.lurker suggested and provide more info on the securities in question.

NotACPA

When you sell the particular security, which Lot Selection method have you been using?  Is it the same method, and the same lots, that your brokerage has been choosing?

John Prewitt

q_lurker

John Prewitt

John Prewitt

The number of shares sold were not sold at $14.26 but at $14.41.  Try using that value and view the portfolio to see the new cost basis.

John Prewitt

John Prewitt

q_lurker

John Prewitt

q_lurker

John Prewitt

Ray Cosner

Jack

I am seeing differences in the Capital Gains report with the new version. Same data file ... report run against previous version and then newly released version.

q_lurker

Jack:  The two reports are showing that different lots were sold.  In one case, the lot acquired 11/12/2018 was sold; in the other case a lot from 8/10/17 was sold.  

Edit the two sales transactions and make sure the correct (and consistent) lot is specified.

Jack

I don't understand how that could have happened. The 2 reports were run against the same quicken data file using the same sales transactions which should specify the same lots.  Nothing was changed in the data ... the only difference was the version of Quicken software used to run the report.  Could it be because the investment transactions are now sorted opposite of what they were ... most recent first (used to be oldest first).  I use FIFO for my sales.

Jack

I think what we are seeing is that Quicken does not actually store the lots when the sale transaction is posted but reconstructs the transactions for the Capital Gains report when it is requested.  The "new" sort order (most recent first when it used to be oldest first) that has slipped into the most recent release in the transaction history of the Investing / Portfolio for the individual securities would explain the difference we are seeing if the Capital Gains report assumes that the transactions are sorted like they used to be and simply selects the "First" lots from the list instead of verifying that they are in fact the "oldest" lots in order to satisfy the FIFO requirement..

A6mD8d

All I know is that the ONLY thing that could have caused this problem for me was the upgrade since I generated correct reports right before doing the upgrade (Thank God!) and afterwards noticing the errors in the capital gains reports where cost basis was inflated, transaction history (Security Detail View) not matching the account register chronologically and the lots order in Select Lots being backwards (Newest lots at the top). Using a backup copy of the data file from before the upgrade and rebuilding lots made no difference. I don't appreciate this happening right before tax season starts!!! Quicken had better be careful since any repercussions suffered by taxpayers due to this issue may end up being a legal issue for them.