How do I merge a security with 2 names in Quicken for Windows?

Qkenoldie

I have securities with two different names under one ticker. How do I merge them so that the holdings are not reported as 2 different ones? For Example Vanguard Value ETF and Vang Value ETF, symbol VTV. Apparently there is a way for Quicken Mac users. I don't want to rename all the transactions for one of them in order to be able to delete the other.
Using Quicken Windows subscription, release 28.28.

Rich_M

Each symbol is unique and can only have one security description.  Are you sure you have a duplicate symbol in your security list?  That shouldn't be possible.

Bob_L

It definitely can be done during security add by skipping the symbol and then adding it later manually.  (People, including me, do this in order to track the same security in different accounts with different goals.) 
To remove I suggest you do a corporate acquisition of one by the other.  Backup first.

q_lurker

Even noting your preference to not edit the transactions, that is likely what I would pursue.  If you sort the transactions list by Security, all the like transactions will be together.  You can then click on the security name, and directly paste in the preferred name.  It becomes a process of

• "Click" (to highlight the security name)
• Ctrl-V (to paste in the preferred name)
• Enter (to save the edited transaction with the new name and move to the next transaction). 

I think you'll be surprised how quickly it can go. (Backup first)

Rich_M

@q_lurker I wasn't aware that you could have duplicate symbols until now as @Bob_L explained to me, so I experimented with it myself to see how it is done.  I am not sure if this is by design or people are just exploiting a known bug.

Personally, I would never want to do this intentionally, it would just create unnecessary confusion for me and this does not occur in the real world.

@q_lurker I am on the same page with you regarding editing the transactions, however, if I was in this situation I would prefer to correct all the transactions using the wrong duplicate symbol so that I can then delete the extra erroneous symbol from my security list altogether.

I tried this myself and found it a bit cumbersome, but it can be done.

@Qkenoldie Just curious, did you do this intentionally or by accident?

Bob_L

I believe it goes back to the days before downloading.  If you want to track by goal it is the only way to do it.  A typical usage case is money market funds in different accounts.

Rich_M

@Bob_L Gotcha, but as I said earlier, for me this would be just looking for trouble.

volvogirl

Yes way back when I started I made different security names for each one and each account.  Like Vanguard were all set up as Single Mutual Fund accounts instead of all being in the same account like IRA or Joint.  So I have security names of
 Vanguard GNMA IRA wife and
Vanguard GNMA IRA husband.  They have the same tickers.

q_lurker

Rich_M said:

@q_lurker I wasn't aware that you could have duplicate symbols until now as @Bob_L explained to me, so I experimented with it myself to see how it is done.  I am not sure if this is by design or people are just exploiting a known bug.

Personally, I would never want to do this intentionally, it would just create unnecessary confusion for me and this does not occur in the real world.

@q_lurker I am on the same page with you regarding editing the transactions, however, if I was in this situation I would prefer to correct all the transactions using the wrong duplicate symbol so that I can then delete the extra erroneous symbol from my security list altogether.

I tried this myself and found it a bit cumbersome, but it can be done.

@Qkenoldie Just curious, did you do this intentionally or by accident?

I would not classify it as a bug.  Ten or more years ago, the program quit letting the user directly create securities with duplicate symbols, but the 'create and change' backdoor has remained ever since then.  Though I predicted at the time, they would eventually close that back door, I suspect Quicken got enough feedback about the cases where people want that setup that the back door has remained open.

The underlying issue I see with two securities sharing a common symbol is that only one of those securities can be Matched with an online security.    

I agree -- personally I would never do take that approach, but others have put forth their case for doing so.  .   

... however, if I was in this situation I would prefer to correct all the transactions using the wrong duplicate symbol ...

In this case and most such cases, neither security has the 'wrong' symbol.  I was suggesting that that the correction (security name edit) be applied to one of the two securities that share the common symbol.  Once done, then deleting the now unused security is possible, as you note.      

Rich_M

@q_lurker I guess wrong was a poor choice of words. 

Obviously Quicken must have a unique internal id that it's using to distinguish those symbols apart.  

So by giving all the transactions the same description they will then be assigned to only one of those symbols, freeing the other for deletion, if I understand you correctly. 

Rich_M

@q_lurker This whole scenario really got my interest, so I decided to try it out for myself.  I was able to quickly change the name of the security on the transactions using your solution and when done the duplicate security I no longer wanted could be deleted from the list.

One other thing to note is that I did not have to paste the description into the transaction, I just started to type the first few letters and then select the correct one from the list.

I think this is a great solution for the original poster.

NotACPA

How about a simple 1 for 1 acquisition of the security name that you don't want by the security name that you DO want?

Rich_M

@NotACPA Nope, IMO @q_lurker has the best solution, thanks.

NotACPA

Rich_M said:

@NotACPA Nope, IMO @q_lurker has the best solution, thanks.

WHY?

And, we'll let the OP decide.

Rich_M

@NotACPA No offense, but I tried @q_lurker solution, it's quick and easy and corrects the erroneous transactions and eliminates the duplicate security. 

Although your solution works also, it records an erroneous transaction in the account that never happened.

My preference is to correct my B&R  although it may be painful, just my choice. 

NotACPA

WHAT erroneous transaction???  The OP had a single security, that's pertinent to this discussion, at all times.  It just had 2 names.

The CorpAcq transaction will change all of the misnamed transactions into the proper name, and NOT leave behind any residue.

Any transactions that WERE VTV1 will become VTV2  Their price histories will merge (but since they're really the same security, that's immaterial).  And the OP will be left with a single, merged, security.

How much simpler can it get?

And, have you ever actually tried a CorpAcq???

BTW, I notice that @Bob_L suggested the same thing this morning.

q_lurker

I see nothing wrong with the Corporate Acquisition approach as a going-forward correction.  As I suggested, I would rather consolidate the two securities into one so that the history would also be cleaner and so that the duplicate security could be actually deleted.  Personal choice.  

Bob_L

IMO, it turns on how many transactions you have.  The Corp acquisition approach makes most sense if you have lots of transactions.

Rich_M

@NotACPA I read both @Bob_L and @q_lurker approaches and tried each of them in my own data file to see the result before deciding which one I liked better.

As I said, what I didn't like about the Corporate Acquisition approach is that it creates an historical event which did not actually occur and still prevents me from deleting the duplicate security from my list. 

If I were to run a report prior to the Corporate Acquisition transaction date I would still see this security listed under two different names with the same symbol. 

I do agree that this transaction is the easiest approach, but it does actually leave historical residue, as you put it, which I do not like.

Yes, @q_lurker approach takes more effort, especially if there are many transactions to change, but I found I could do it very quickly.

The end result is that all my transactions have the single security description that I want, the duplicate security can be deleted, and there is no record that this ever happened.

This is why I like @q_lurker approach best, it's the cleanest.

q_lurker

NotACPA said:

WHAT erroneous transaction???  The OP had a single security, that's pertinent to this discussion, at all times.  It just had 2 names.

The CorpAcq transaction will change all of the misnamed transactions into the proper name, and NOT leave behind any residue.

Any transactions that WERE VTV1 will become VTV2  Their price histories will merge (but since they're really the same security, that's immaterial).  And the OP will be left with a single, merged, security.

How much simpler can it get?

And, have you ever actually tried a CorpAcq???

BTW, I notice that @Bob_L suggested the same thing this morning.

Actually, the CorpAcq transaction will enter a new series of transactions where all lots of VTV1 (your nomenclature) are removed as of the transaction date and new lots of VTV2 are added.  The process does not rename or otherwise alter prior transactions. 

Perhaps you are thinking of the Corporate Name Change (which does change historical transactions).  But that will not work to change the name to a security name already existing in the Quicken file.     

Qkenoldie

I tried editing the transactions, it is painful to go over every transaction but it works. I have done it in the past, but was hoping there was a better way. It is a shame that Quicken does not provide a simple way to do it. I am also going to try the 1 for 1 acquisition and a corporate acquisition with a copy of my file to see which one is easier and more convenient. Thank you all for your suggestions.

Rich_M

@Qkenoldie You should not be able to create duplicate symbols in the first place, I don't believe this was done by design. 

If this back door, as @q_lurker put it, were closed a long time ago, you wouldn't have this mess in the first place.