Schwab Download: Return of Capital vs. LT Capital Gain
Good morning Q community. This morning I executed a One Step Update and two ETFs (in Managed Portfolios) distributed “Return of Capital” according to the Quicken description. Unfortunately, the distributions were Long-term Capital Gains according to our Schwab accounts. I went into the account registers and did an appropriate edit and now they’re reflected accurately. Has anyone else experienced this problem? I’m not expecting a solution. Frankly I probably need to be somewhat happy that (1) the transaction actually downloaded and (2) with an accurate amount. I guess that’s now the definition of progress.
Answers
-
Had same issue today. Two transactions categories as Return of Capital though one was actually long term capital gain and the other short term. I adjusted in register.1
-
I am also getting that problem. Just in time for all the year-end distributions :-(1
-
Me too. ETF affected. downloaded as RoC but was really LTCG or STCG. Had to manually change from RoC to appropriate CG. As per earlier observation, this is going to be a pain given all the year end distributions.
(Quicken testing this Schwab transition prior to cutover seems to have been minimal given all the issues raised in community.)1 -
I just ran into this too. [Removed - Language]0
-
@scondas
Good morning. For what it's worth...First, I have little to zero confidence in Q downloads for our investments. Therefore, every morning BEFORE I do a OSU (One Step Update) I go into Schwab and manually check for new transactions.
If there are any new transactions I manually enter them into their respective investment account. Then I do the OSU and see what matches. Or, in other words, see how lucky I get today. I accept the matches and delete the bogus downloads.
What used to (before 18 Nov) take minutes for the results of a One Step Update now takes a significant amount of time because of the preparation required before the OSU.
Now, one of the Q moderators is going to read this and tell me to validate, super validate, deactivate, reactivate and then report a problem. I have less confidence in those instructions then I do the OSU. In other words, in the last four weeks I've learned to depend on my fellow Q Community members like you for guidance, counsel and suggestions.
How's that for a posting?1 -
There remains problems with Download and is recognized by quicken as of 12/13/21.
ETF affected. downloaded as RoC but was really LTCG or STCG. Had to manually change from RoC to appropriate CG. As per earlier observation, this is going to be a pain given all the year end distributions.
This is still happening as of now, 12/16/21, 5pm cst1 -
Still happening with Mutual Funds and ETFs as of 12/18 ...0
-
Still happening with Mutual Funds and ETFs as of 12/210
-
@Quicken Kathryn
please get development to fix these issues.0 -
Having the same ONGOING issue...0
-
Still happening with Mutual Funds and ETFs as of 12/29. LTCG was downloaded as STCG.0
-
@Q_comm_red
Good morning. I started this thread 22 days ago and that's a statement unto itself. Two weeks ago you stated this was a problem "recognized" by Q. Again, another statement that should give us pause. Basically, in my opinion (only) I think the investment downloads are now about 85%-95% accurate which is unacceptable. However, in fairness that's an improvement. I've resigned myself to the fact that I now must do more work in terms of checking each download before accepting. Q still has not figured out how to handle the "cash sweeps" with SWGXX which, therefore, causes cash balances to be inaccurate. If anyone has insight as to when we'll all be able to trust the OSU process again I'd sure like to hear about it.0 -
@artg
It is amazing that these issues are still happening. (I am using R37.62). "recognized" was referring to a statement from support that the issue was acknowledged. Given the transition was about 11/18/21, I am surprised by the lack of progress by the quicken development. For some of us the "switch cost" is high, but I would think quicken management has to be asking some hard questions about revenue impact as subscriptions come up for renewal. Maybe they will be offering existing customers some sort of "rebate/refund" for all the pain of this Schwab transition.
reference post on 11/18/21 https://bit.ly/3pElGVt1 -
@Q_comm_red
As a sidebar, my subscription came up for renewal on 27 November. I had setup my account to renew automatically and charge my credit card. What I found amazing was that when I woke up and logged into my credit card account on 27 November I saw a pending charge from Q for the exact amount I owed. So, I was thinking that maybe some of the software engineers who work in "Accounts Receivable" could help the software engineers who actually write the code for our application. In other words, when it comes to getting paid for their (substandard) service Q is pretty good. In the meantime, I'll continue to wait for my "rebate/refund" for the grief, stress and aggrevation we've all endured since 18 November.
How's that for a posting?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
@Mark502Ulmer
Mark, I don't think there's much to say (post) anymore. Those of us who are serious users have spent about six weeks on this website helping each other while waiting for Q to fix the problems. It's clear they haven't but I guess the good news is they're aware.
In the meantime, I know I'm doing a significant amount of auditing downloaded transactions followed by manually editing the same. Oh yea, and deleting SWGXX cash sweeps.
I'll say it again...if anyone (among my fellow users in the Community) has a solution I'm listening. On the other hand, I'm not interested in a Q moderator telling me to validate, super validate, deactivate, reactivate, send in logs and report a problem followed by downloading a mondo patch. In other words, I'm listening to my fellow users.1