On reconcile, opening balance difference is incorrect

larryjoeb
larryjoeb Quicken Windows Subscription Member ✭✭
Starting a few months ago, when I reconcile my checking account, the "Opening Balance Difference" is incorrect. The first two transactions in the account as shown in the register are the following:
2/21/2004 DEP $60.00 balance=$60.00
2/26/2004 DEP $0.33 balance=$60.33

If I reconcile with a date of 2/25/2004, an opening balance of $0, and a closing balance of $60, the Opening Balance Difference shows -$15,091.39 instead of $0.

If I dump the account to a *.QIF file, the beginning of the file shows the following:
!Type:Bank
D2/21' 4
U60.00
T60.00
C*
NDEP
L[Cash Account]
^
D2/26' 4
U0.33
T0.33
CX
NDEP
PPaypal
MPaypal account verification
LOther Inc
^

Any ideas for what is happening?
Tagged:

Comments

  • Mark Pedroia
    Mark Pedroia Member ✭✭✭
    This happens to my file also, I've previously posted about.  The issue is not resolved.  In my original post, I thought the "new" opening balance was some random value but what I've been experiencing lately is a "new" opening balance that is the sum total of all outstanding (uncleared - unreconciled) checks, efts, etc..   So, Quicken is not making up the number but tallying the uncleared and dropping that value at the top of the register, sometimes 10 years back.  Note to others, if your true opening balance is not 0.00, then I would put the actual (correct) value in the memo field of the opening balance transaction so you can remedy this and then complete your reconcile.
  • larryjoeb
    larryjoeb Quicken Windows Subscription Member ✭✭
    If it's true that the erroneous opening balance is some sum of uncleared/unreconciled transactions, does that suggest that clearing all uncleared transactions makes the problem go away? When you mention outstanding transactions, would that only be transactions from that specific account or also from other accounts? And by "clearing", I'm assuming you're referring to marking those transactions as reconciled, right?
This discussion has been closed.