How to enter pre-2022 RSU Grants

TerrenceT

I'm delighted that Quicken for Windows (latest version) supports RSU's - angels singing. I have RSU grants from past years. Some of these previous year's RSU shares have vested already and the transactions are already entered into the related Quicken accounts (checking account for income to buy the shares and show withholding; investment account for share transactions to record vesting day and value).
What is the best known method for adding these previous RSU grants into Quicken without disturbing (or duplicating or having to revise) the past history already properly recorded into Quicken accounts?

Tom Young

If all "prior history" of RSU transactions are properly recorded in you Accounts, then it seems one way of approaching this would be enter just the "unvested" elements of the open RSUs.  That is, if you were granted an RSU on June, 30, 2020 which had a vesting schedule of 1/3rd of the shares every 12 months, you'd record an RSU as of June 30, 2022 with only one vesting a year in the future (June 30, 2023) for the remaining 1/3rd of the shares.  Seems like something along those lines should work.

TerrenceT

Thanks Tom - This appears to be the most logical approach. When I entered one of my past RSU grants, it gave me a fractional # of shares vesting 100.00054 but I only vest in integer #'s of shares... questions:
a. how can I "undo" the grant and all the vesting entries (every 3 months for 4 years) it created in the investment account register?
b. how do I tell the RSU grant tool I only want integer #'s of shares vesting (no partial share vesting)?

Tom Young

I haven't really experimented with the RSUs except for one test grant... Quicken made all future entries in the Account. 

a. I was able to delete each transaction one-by-one, and that might be the only way.

b. I've seen others complain about fractional shares showing up, and I'm not sure why that would be the case.  But I did notice that if you edit a vesting, there's a box to click if the calculated number of shares is different than the actual number of shares.  So if the vesting results in a fractional share, you can correct it there.

TerrenceT

Hi Tom,
Thanks - I deleted the fractional RSU vesting manually. For b., where do I go to enter a request to fix this by giving the user an option to choose integer vesting only (and choose rounding or no rounding)?
Also, I noticed that both the income and the tax calculations were off by $0.01 (too low). Quicken calculated # shares (integer) * $36.87 off by $0.01 in both cases.

Tom Young

You can make a new post in here in the community with your suggestion and make it an "Idea."  You do that by clicking on the Ellipsis points in the upper right hand corner and select "Ideation."  If the idea gets traction (many people have complained along the same lines as you) the idea will be taken up by the developers as a project. 

I don't know why the calc would be off.  If the dollar amount is correct that sorta suggests that although you're seeing an integer, Quicken is working with a fraction that it rounds to 1 for presentation purposes. 

TerrenceT

Thanks again Tom. I could not find the "ellipsis points" wherein to select "ideation". I'm guessing I could create a new discussion?
For the incorrect calc - I verified 3 times that I had no extended values in # of shares and percentage (6.250%) for the first vesting should have given the proper income & tax calculations. Seems there is a hidden SW bug somewhere.

Tom Young

Those are the 3 dots between the thing that looks like a small vertical banner and a the small square in the upper right hand corner of your post.  You can make any post, even the first one in this thread, an "idea", but I think it would be better to create a new discussion such that the post is a clear expression of your idea.

So the vesting percent against the grant DID result in an integral number of shares, there's no rounding error there?  Such that 10 x $36.87 would come up a s $368.69?

Before there was an RSU function available in Quicken I used to advise a work around of creating a NQSO with an exercise price of $.000001, and that seemed to work.  (RSUs and NQSOs are both "non-statutory" options with the main obvious difference between two being NQSOs have an explicit exercise price while RSUs don't.  The small "exercise price" rounded to $0.00 when you "exercised" your RSUs, i.e., the vested.)  Now I'm wondering if the developers used the same trick somewhere in the background of their programming and that's the source of the difference.