nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Quicken keeps inserting the wrong basis for shares

unknown

I realized that my cost basis in 1739 shares of a stock was astronomical...I tracked down the problem from a transaction in 1987 (I'm a long-time used of Quicken). My actual cost basis in these shares is $0. Even when I input $0, Quicken calculates the basis for these in the bzillions (literally...there aren't even any commas). I've deleted the transaction...looked at the portfolio and my basis for this holding is where it should be. When I re-enter the 1987 information for the 1739 shares, I'm back to the bzillions figure. Yes, it does have the asterisk, showing that it's a placeholder. I don't want a placeholder...I want Quicken to recognize $0 as my cost basis. Here's the screenshot of my supposed basis.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

NotACPA

I'd suspect a corrupted data file. SO, if you're a QWin user, try this:
1) FILE, Save a copy as ... and pick any other data file for your file (NOT one currently in use)
2) using the copy, FILE, File Operations, Validate and Repair. Check "Validate File" and "Rebuild Investment Lots" before you click OK

unknown

NotACPA...thank you for your help. I followed your instructions and
created a copy file. I did the validate and repair on the copy file. I
got this message "Corrected 19 Bought or Shares Added transactions that
were incorrectly categorized as a realized gain. If any of these should have
been for a Cover Short Sale, you should modify them. Listed:"

In the list were the 1739 shares acquired in 1987 with a basis of
-$92,233,720,368,547,758.0(

I ran a portfolio valuation using the "validated and repaired"
file and it showed the same weird basis. I deleted the 1987
transaction in the account. The basis then became what it should be. I added the 1987
shares back to the account with $0 as the basis and the
-$92,233,720,368,547,758.0(basis came back for that transaction. This weird basis
doesn't show on the entry, just when I run reports or look at portfolio
valuation.

This is very alarming since I have had my entire portfolio, basis,
acquisition data in Quicken and use this information when reporting to
IRS. Obviously, Quicken has some issues!

q_lurker

From that point, I would try the following:

Have Quicken create a copy of the file (Copy1).
In that copy, delete the 1739 share acquisition.
Have Quicken make another copy of the file with the transaction deleted (Copy2).
Have Quicken Validate and Repair the second copy (Copy2) including the rebuild lots option.
In that now validated Copy2 file, attempt to re-enter the 1739 share acquisition.
Review the results paying special attention to any historical sales of this security.

Second option: Try to enter a small cost basis ($0.01) for the 1739 share transaction.

Third option: Revert to a backup that does not exhibit this issue.

unknown

q.lurker...thank you. I followed your instructions for the first option...the same horrific number appeared on Copy2 when I entered the information after I'd validated, repaired, and rebuilt lots.

I then used $.01/share for the cost basis...for $17.39 total basis and this message below is what I got. I had tried this before on the original and hit the same impasse. I tried using a different date, same message.

I have found in a backup where this account isn't corrupt. It's just this one stock/one transaction that I have seen the issue. Can one copy just one account from an old backup into a current file?

I did try copying the 1987 transaction from the backup and pasting it in Copy 2...same weird number appears with $0 as basis, and same message below if I use .01.

Does Quicken ever address these issues or do we flounder on our own?

Again, thanks for your help!

unknown

You could be looking at a Y2K bug. Yes they did exist and yes Quicken still has them. Try entering a date in the more recent past like 2007. For LT Capital Gains purposes, any date over one year ago is satisfactory.
Meanwhile yes you will be floundering on your own.

q_lurker

q.lurker...thank you. I followed your instructions for the first option...the same horrific number appeared on Copy2 when I entered the information after I'd validated, repaired, and rebuilt lots.

I then used $.01/share for the cost basis...for $17.39 total basis and this message below is what I got. I had tried this before on the original and hit the same impasse. I tried using a different date, same message.

I have found in a backup where this account isn't corrupt. It's just this one stock/one transaction that I have seen the issue. Can one copy just one account from an old backup into a current file?

I did try copying the 1987 transaction from the backup and pasting it in Copy 2...same weird number appears with $0 as basis, and same message below if I use .01.

Does Quicken ever address these issues or do we flounder on our own?

Again, thanks for your help!

Since you found a backup not exhibiting this issue, it makes more sense to me that some data corruption has gotten into this data file. If the Validates don't fix it (and that inability is fairly common for investment accounts), there is not much else reliable to do.

I have found in a backup where this account isn't corrupt. It's just this one stock/one transaction that I have seen the issue. Can one copy just one account from an old backup into a current file?

No ability to copy one security, one transaction, one account or any partial form from a backup to another file. there are some ways to export and import using QIF files, but such techniques are not for the faint-hearted and I would not try to direct someone through those processes. I am not sure I would ever use them myself. How far back is the backup?

unknown

q.lurker...thank you. I followed your instructions for the first option...the same horrific number appeared on Copy2 when I entered the information after I'd validated, repaired, and rebuilt lots.

I then used $.01/share for the cost basis...for $17.39 total basis and this message below is what I got. I had tried this before on the original and hit the same impasse. I tried using a different date, same message.

I have found in a backup where this account isn't corrupt. It's just this one stock/one transaction that I have seen the issue. Can one copy just one account from an old backup into a current file?

I did try copying the 1987 transaction from the backup and pasting it in Copy 2...same weird number appears with $0 as basis, and same message below if I use .01.

Does Quicken ever address these issues or do we flounder on our own?

Again, thanks for your help!

The backup where file wasn't corrupted was from 2012 ...it was a backup that I just happened to look in. Probably more recent backups with uncorrupted file. The problem is that I do everything in Quicken with hundreds/thousands of entries between banking and investments, so I can't re-enter everything from 2012. I'm not that young!

unknown

fanfare.
I don't know what the Y2K bug is as related to Quicken, and I've not any other issues (that I know of)...but you may be on to something.

There may be two offending entries: 1739 shares on 6/22/87 and 2608.5 shares on 6/30/89.

I've worked backwards from today. I'm able to enter the shares on 12/17/92 as Transactions date for both, and the cost basis is correct. However, if I enter 6/30/92 as Transaction date, the weird basis appears. I've kept Dates Acquired as 6/22/87 and 6/30/89.

Is there a fix for the Y2K bug?

Thank you!

q_lurker

fanfare.
I don't know what the Y2K bug is as related to Quicken, and I've not any other issues (that I know of)...but you may be on to something.

There may be two offending entries: 1739 shares on 6/22/87 and 2608.5 shares on 6/30/89.

I've worked backwards from today. I'm able to enter the shares on 12/17/92 as Transactions date for both, and the cost basis is correct. However, if I enter 6/30/92 as Transaction date, the weird basis appears. I've kept Dates Acquired as 6/22/87 and 6/30/89.

Is there a fix for the Y2K bug?

Thank you!

You can enter the transactions on 12/17/92 OK. What about the day before, etc.? Why the big jump back to 6/30/92? Are there other transactions in the interim period?

Other than historical accuracy between 87 and 92, is there some reason you cannot leave the 12/17/92 transactions in place as "close enough for now"?

I have been using various Quicke's since 1991 and I am not aware of any specific Y2k bug.