Quicken Community is moving to Single Sign On! Starting 1/22/21, you'll sign in to the community with your Quicken ID. For more information: http://bit.ly/CommunitySSO

Mismatch of stock shares amount available for sale in the Specify Tax Lots dialog

Unknown
Unknown Member
edited July 2018 in Investing (Windows)
Quicken 2016 R12, Win 7

When entering the number of Shares to Sell in the Specify Lots dialog as part of a stock sale transaction
entry, the amount of shares Available to Sell is significantly larger than the actual one,
let's say 2000 while the actual one is 1000. At the same time, balances of cash and shares are accurate in all places, including the register and Holdings tax lot breakdown.

When I delete both sale and purchase transaction which supposedly
introduce the issue, the problem migrates to other transactions. Looks
like a database corruption to me.

I have tried a variety of things, including Validate and Repair operation with Rebuild Investing Lots box checked, but to no avail.

The issue is introduced around June 28 purchase. If there is no other solution, I am thinking about deleting all transactions in this account going back to that day, and then reentering them manually. However, my concern is that the corruption appears to be non-transaction specific, possibly the table or the security specific, and that it would migrate into earlier records. I don't mind spending a few hours, as long as there is a proven strategy for a fix, or at least an educated expert guess of what's going on, and a few thought out paths to recovery.

I would very much appreciate any help with the issue.

Comments

  • mshiggins
    mshiggins SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2017
    Have you tried restoring a back up taken before the issue occurred?
    Quicken user since Q1999. Currently using QW2017.
    Questions? Check out the  Quicken Windows FAQ list
  • Unknown
    Unknown Member
    edited February 2018
    Belated, however wanted to close the issue here.

    I was able to resolve it only by re-entering transactions from the point when the issue was introduced. A bit tedious, but there was no other solution.
This discussion has been closed.