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; } } }

Bug: Schwab stock splits downloaded/entered into Quicken as "Add Shares"

MontanaKarl

CSX had a 3:1 stock split on 6/28/2021. The download from Charles Schwab into both QMac and QWin comes in as an "Add Shares" transaction instead of a "Stock Split" which is a serious bug.

The "Add Shares" does add the correct number of shares, so total shares is correct - but those shares are added with a cost basis of zero which is wrong and will mess up and future sales / capital gains. The original cost basis for each basis lot has to be split across all post-split shares.

I have to manually edit each downloaded "Add Shares" transaction to change it to a "Stock Split" for the correct ratio (3:1 in this case) to get Quicken to have the split date correctly represented.

Is this bug on Schwab's side of things? (Possible since it happens in both QMac and QWin.). If so, can Quicken get Schwab to fix things on their end?

Or is it a Quicken bug in not recognizing the way that Schwab encodes a split transaction and thus processing it incorrectly?

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

MontanaKarl

NotACPA said:

MontanaKarl said:

I feel this is a bug on Quicken's part, and one that is trivially solved... by Quicken, not by Schwab, Edward Jones or any external firm.
If your brokerage sent instructions that this was an "Add - Shares Added" transaction, HOW is Q supposed to know that it was a stock split (an entirely different transaction) and not something that you deposited into your brokerage account that you received from a relative, or from your safe deposit box.
The REAL question is "Why can't various brokerages send the correct, and actual, transaction???"

Seems simple enough. If the "Add Shares" transactions has ZERO as the cost basis / purchase price, and happens on the SAME day as a stock split for XYZ stock, and corresponds EXACTLY to an N for M stock split known by Quicken (quote download) to have happened on that date... it is 99.9% likely that it is really an N for M split.

Agree, brokerages should send the actual transaction, but its not rocket science for Quicken to follow the above steps given that more than one major brokerage transmits an Add Shares instead of a Split transaction.

MontanaKarl

splasher said:

@MontanaKarl
I have a suggestion, how about starting a new thread as an IDEA of something that Quicken could implement. That does away with all this back and forth about whether it is a bug or as designed.
Anybody that argues with that is just out for an argument. It will either gets some votes or it won't, the the users speak with their votes.

Thanks, @splasher. Done.

All comments

Sherlock

If you haven't already, you may want to review the available help documentation on the subject: https://help.quicken.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=3216589

NotACPA

AND, if it's a bug, it's a Schwab bug ... not a Q bug. Q is merely recording what Schwab has sent.

You'll have better luck convincing Schwab to change this, since you're their client, than Q will.

splasher

Edward Jones does it as an ADD also, so Schwab is not the only one that does not provide information for an actual split, just an ADD.

MontanaKarl

Hmm. From what Sherlock linked about historical pricing... Quicken should then have determined that a stock split occurred and have either entered the split, or recognized that the Add Shares corresponds exactly to a split. So, I think it's still up in the air if this is a Quicken or Schwab bug. I think it's a Quicken bug based on the linked knowledge base article.

Sherlock

MontanaKarl said:

Hmm. From what Sherlock linked about historical pricing... Quicken should then have determined that a stock split occurred and have either entered the split, or recognized that the Add Shares corresponds exactly to a split. So, I think it's still up in the air if this is a Quicken or Schwab bug. I think it's a Quicken bug based on the linked knowledge base article.

If you did not manually enter the split transaction correctly and Quicken did not allow you to accept the split when you imported historical prices (press Ctrl + U and select Update > Historical prices...), there may be an issue with third-party provider and I suggest you contact Quicken Support so they may follow-up.

MontanaKarl

You're not reading the link that you posted nor my post. My split was entered just fine - by converting the Add Shares to a split. No problems with me after manually fixing Quicken's bug. Quicken did NOT obtain the historical quote / split information and did NOT prompt me, nor automatically recognize the Add Shares as a split. Pretty trivial coding to recognize that an Add Share with zero basis on the exact date of a split is a split. Given that Edward Jones as well as Schwab do this... it is a 5 minute bit of coding for Quicken to do this pattern match.

Sherlock

MontanaKarl said:

You're not reading the link that you posted nor my post. My split was entered just fine - by converting the Add Shares to a split. No problems with me after manually fixing Quicken's bug. Quicken did NOT obtain the historical quote / split information and did NOT prompt me, nor automatically recognize the Add Shares as a split. Pretty trivial coding to recognize that an Add Share with zero basis on the exact date of a split is a split. Given that Edward Jones as well as Schwab do this... it is a 5 minute bit of coding for Quicken to do this pattern match.

As documented, if you manually entered the correct split transaction or did not import the historical prices, Quicken will not offer the split.

MontanaKarl

Just to let you know - I'm feeling bullied here, as is often the case with you various 'superusers' who seem to feel you must reply to every unanswered post. Perhaps you could let other ordinary users eventually contribute to this discussion.

I feel this is a bug on Quicken's part, and one that is trivially solved... by Quicken, not by Schwab, Edward Jones or any external firm.

Thanks for your contributions here.

Sherlock

MontanaKarl said:

Just to let you know - I'm feeling bullied here, as is often the case with you various 'superusers' who seem to feel you must reply to every unanswered post. Perhaps you could let other ordinary users eventually contribute to this discussion.

I feel this is a bug on Quicken's part, and one that is trivially solved... by Quicken, not by Schwab, Edward Jones or any external firm.

Thanks for your contributions here.

I don't understand why you're feeling bullied but we're not preventing anyone from contributing to this discussion.

To report a bug to Quicken, select Help > Report a problem...

Based on what you've posted thus far, I would say this is not a bug because Quicken appears to be functioning as documented. You manually entered the correct split transaction. If you had not manually entered the correct split transaction and imported the split with the historical prices, Quicken should have offered the split. If Quicken did not offer the split, I would suspect the third-party quote provider may not have provided the split before assuming it was a bug in Quicken.

Can you explain why you feel this is a bug on Quicken's part, and one that is trivially solved ?

NotACPA

MontanaKarl said:

I feel this is a bug on Quicken's part, and one that is trivially solved... by Quicken, not by Schwab, Edward Jones or any external firm.

If your brokerage sent instructions that this was an "Add - Shares Added" transaction, HOW is Q supposed to know that it was a stock split (an entirely different transaction) and not something that you deposited into your brokerage account that you received from a relative, or from your safe deposit box.

The REAL question is "Why can't various brokerages send the correct, and actual, transaction???"

MontanaKarl

NotACPA said:

MontanaKarl said:

I feel this is a bug on Quicken's part, and one that is trivially solved... by Quicken, not by Schwab, Edward Jones or any external firm.
If your brokerage sent instructions that this was an "Add - Shares Added" transaction, HOW is Q supposed to know that it was a stock split (an entirely different transaction) and not something that you deposited into your brokerage account that you received from a relative, or from your safe deposit box.
The REAL question is "Why can't various brokerages send the correct, and actual, transaction???"

Sherlock

MontanaKarl said:

NotACPA said:

MontanaKarl said:

I feel this is a bug on Quicken's part, and one that is trivially solved... by Quicken, not by Schwab, Edward Jones or any external firm.
If your brokerage sent instructions that this was an "Add - Shares Added" transaction, HOW is Q supposed to know that it was a stock split (an entirely different transaction) and not something that you deposited into your brokerage account that you received from a relative, or from your safe deposit box.
The REAL question is "Why can't various brokerages send the correct, and actual, transaction???"

Seems simple enough. If the "Add Shares" transactions has ZERO as the cost basis / purchase price, and happens on the SAME day as a stock split for XYZ stock, and corresponds EXACTLY to an N for M stock split known by Quicken (quote download) to have happened on that date... it is 99.9% likely that it is really an N for M split.

Agree, brokerages should send the actual transaction, but its not rocket science for Quicken to follow the above steps given that more than one major brokerage transmits an Add Shares instead of a Split transaction.

And.. how is Quicken supposed to know there's been a stock split for XYZ stock on the SAME day?

Once you've enter the split transaction, it's trivial for a user to delete inappropriate transactions. It's dangerous to allow the software to determine which transactions it should delete on it's own.

MontanaKarl

Stock splits do not download the same day as the split... but the day after...when Quicken would have already downloaded the split with the historical quote data...and should simply merge the split with the download. I have NEVER been offered information from Quicken about a split in either QWin or QMac in spite of the knowledgebase article saying that it should happen.

splasher

@MontanaKarl
I have a suggestion, how about starting a new thread as an IDEA of something that Quicken could implement. That does away with all this back and forth about whether it is a bug or as designed.
Anybody that argues with that is just out for an argument. It will either gets some votes or it won't, the the users speak with their votes.

Mark1104

@splasher personally, I'd like to see the design spec sheet that Q gives to financial institutions to see what instructions they give to banks on how to create the file for download. That will end the debate.

it's a world of inputs and outputs.

if the cake recipe calls for sugar and salt is used, the recipe is correct and it's an "input error" - it's not even a bug. if the ingredients are correct but the cake doesn't come out of the oven as expected, then that would be a bug.

So if the Quicken software is processing Share Adds and Stock Splits as designed but the financial institution is not following the design spec sheet, it's an 'input error' and no 'bug'. It would only be a 'bug' if the financial institutions were following the design spec sheet correctly but the end result was incorrect.

just my two cents.

MontanaKarl

Quicken's actions - automatically accepting "Add Shares" transactions showing zero basis and thereby invalidating the cost basis of the entire holdings of a company - corrupt the users data. Is that a bug? Well, the 20th century 'coding' mentality would say: heck no, because the brokerage did not provide a split transaction in the download, so we correctly entered what they presented us with. It is the brokerage's fault. We processed the inputs we were provided.

The thing is - software is supposed to be robust and not simply respond to inputs... but to validate those inputs... and even to use rules (some call these things AI because it sounds woo-woo, but they're just rules) - to make sure that the user's data is correct at all times. That's software engineering vs simple coding.

Quicken fails in this case. Earlier, I gave the trivial rules that could be programmed to eliminate the resulting data corruption. If nothing else, a warning could be displayed to the user.

This isn't a case of using salt instead of sugar in a recipe. It's a case of receiving baking soda for a recipe that calls for baking powder and saying "Oh, I can just add the right amount of cream of tartar to the soda and I'll then have home-made baking powder and the cake will come out correctly".

NotACPA

MontanaKarl said:

Quicken's actions - automatically accepting "Add Shares" transactions showing zero basis and thereby invalidating the cost basis of the entire holdings of a company - corrupt the users data.

On their website, in a retirement type account, Fidelity Investments also records Div Reinv as having a $0 cost basis.

SO, is the Q data for EVERY Fidelity customer who holds a retirement account corrupt???

That's a pretty broad, and unsupported, statement.

BUT, the fundamental issue is that Q should accept what the financial institution sends ... and if the customers don't like that, they should complain to the financial institutions.

MontanaKarl

splasher said:

@MontanaKarl
I have a suggestion, how about starting a new thread as an IDEA of something that Quicken could implement. That does away with all this back and forth about whether it is a bug or as designed.
Anybody that argues with that is just out for an argument. It will either gets some votes or it won't, the the users speak with their votes.

Thanks, @splasher. Done.

Chris_QPW

Mark1104 said:

@splasher personally, I'd like to see the design spec sheet that Q gives to financial institutions to see what instructions they give to banks on how to create the file for download. That will end the debate.

"Direct Connect" is a slightly modified version of the OFX spec.
So you can find the "design spec" here:
https://www.ofx.net/downloads.html

There are several sections on how to handle a split transaction, but lets get right to the point there is a "action" for it just like there is one for "add shares" and as such the two shouldn't thought as the "same" with different data.

Some other examples:

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/6031128/uploads/editor/lx/io5sl5i9trda.png

Split:

Personally I'm against Quicken Inc "fixing the data". That kind of thing always leads down a bad rabbit hole.