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

Mutual Fund Cost Basis Discrepancy

artg
artg Member ✭✭✭
I have a (non-qualified) mutual fund account with a well known investment company I'm very pleased with.  In this account I have six (6) mutual funds.  When I visit the website of my investment company they have a tool which shows me the unrealized gain (loss) of each fund.  The site is very clear that gains (losses) are determined by average cost basis.  All six funds have shares purchased as well as distributions reinvested from before 1 January 2012 to date.  What is interesting (and the purpose of this posting) is that 4 out of 6 of the funds match my Quicken Investing (Security View) gain or loss to the penny.  Obviously there's a discrepancy with 2 of the 6 funds.  I'd like Quicken to match my investment company website.  I'm open to opinions, thoughts and/or options to fix the discrepancy. 

Comments

  • Tom Young
    Tom Young SuperUser ✭✭✭✭✭
    It would be useful to know where the discrepancy arises.  Market value?  Basis?  Number of shares?  Per share FMV?  Per share average cost?  Perhaps you've sold shares using one method for cost determination, e.g., FIFO, while the investment company used Average?  Perhaps you've sold shares that resulted in wash sales?

    Need a little grist for the wheel here.
  • artg
    artg Member ✭✭✭
    Thank you for responding Tom.  I'm referencing the Security Detail View by individual mutual fund.  Specifically I'm looking at the "Gain" which is either a positive (gain) or negative number. That's the discrepancy on 2 of the 6 funds.
  • NotACPA
    NotACPA SuperUser, Windows Beta Beta
    Your discrepancy can be totally explained by the Lot choice that Tom previously explained.
    Q user since DOS version 5
    Now running Quicken Windows Subscription,  Home & Business
    Retired "Certified Information Systems Auditor" & Bank Audit VP
This discussion has been closed.