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; } } }

Trouble entering a Reverse Stock Split for BOIL at 1:20

BlueAkiva

One of our holdings recently had a 1:20 Reverse Stock Split. When I did the OSU I was prompted by the Security Matching dialogue box and here is where my problem starts. If I choose, "YES" and select the current security Quicken wants to add two transactions; 1) SELL of all our existing shares and 2) BUY "Unidentified Security" of the correct number of new shares. Why does it think this is a new Security?

If I choose, "NO" in the Security Matching dialogue box and have Quicken add a new Security it wants to add the following two transactions; 1) SELL the total number of my existing shares of a different but similarly named Security and 2) BUY the correct number of split shares in my existing Security. As an example, Rather than being left with 100 shares instead of 2000 after the split, I end up with 2100 shares of my existing security and -2000 shares of a similarly named security.

Is there a step I am missing? Or is it best to manually enter a transaction like this rather than working with the downloaded information? Is it even possible to manually enter a reverse stock split?

Thanks for your help! I really appreciate any thoughts on my issue!!

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

q_lurker

Q2 - The CUSIP matching follows from first unchecking the “Matched” box on the existing version. When the program next compares holdings with the brokers data, the new CUSIP will be applied to that security and the “Matched” box will get checked again.

Q1 - To be in control, I’d start that off manually as well. With a good backup, I’d

Edit the current security to change the ticker (BOIl-old)
Add the new security unique name and correct ticker (BOIL)
For simplicity, I’d use the Corporate Acquisition action to have new acquire old. Especially helpful if you had multiple lots of the old.
Now when you download, you should be able to match new to new. Since your Corp Acq did the removed and adds, you should find transaction matches or be sble to knowingly delete extraneous downloaded transactions.

Without walking through the specifics, I think that is most of the steps.

Adding to the case for the practical - I think that one security approach makes it easier to monitor longer-term performance.

Hope this helps

All comments

NotACPA

Why not simply add the reverse split txn yourself, using the SPLIT action and the proper ratio?

BlueAkiva

Thanks for the response! When I ran into this unexpected difficulty, I started asking myself the same question. If I were to manually enter it, do I just use the "Stock Split" transaction or is there a separate/special way to handle a 'Reverse' Stock Split. Also, would manually entering the transaction cause me any issues with future One Step Updates?

q_lurker

Entering a manual version of the split should not adversely impact future downloads.

But it seems possible the ‘split’ had other aspects such that the new shares may have a different name (not too critical) and CUSIP (critical) than the prior shares. That would be why the remove, adds, sells, and buys were being offered.

If there has been a CUSIP change, you will want to edit your Quicken version of the security, uncheck the “matched with online security “, and then let a rematch take place with the next download.

NotACPA

Also, pay attention to any fractional shares created by the split and how they're handled. You MIGHT get "cash in lieu" of that fraction, which is recorded as a sale of the fraction in Q.

One of my wife's holding had a 1 for 20 reverse split a few years ago and she had 25 shs before this. 1 sh and some cash after

BlueAkiva

It looks like the CUSIP (and name) may have changed which is surprising to me because the Symbol is still the same.

Because the CUSIP changed is it no longer advisable/possible to enter the transaction manually?

If I don't resolve this manually, can you help me with the exact steps to set it up correctly using the information from OSU starting with whether I should choose YES or No at the Matching Security prompt?

This is super helpful! Thank you both so much!!

NotACPA

It would help us if you'd name the company.

BlueAkiva

Oh, sure! It is an ETF with the symbol BOIL. I've attached a screen shot of the Matching Security prompt where it appears the name and CUSIP may be changing…

q_lurker

I think it is more advisable to handle that type of change manually. In that context, though, you are not rigorously following what took place in the real (financial) world. You are taking a path that makes logical sense to you.

You had 20 shares of ‘A Basic Company’, Ticker ABC, CUSIP whatever. Now you have 1 share of ‘A Basic Company (new)’, Ticker ABC, CUSIP different. It’s the same company doing the same deals, under the same management, selling the same goods and services, but to make this happen, the must have needed legally a new structure, a new name etc.

The simple manual approach splitting the prior shares treats it as the same company before and after. That is what the real (practical) sees even though the financial legal world knows differently.

Caveat: Note I am positing these comments with no specific knowledge about the reverse split nor any authoritative expertise in the area. Do your own due diligence.

BlueAkiva

Your distinction makes perfect sense! Typically, I would prefer to have Quicken accurately reflect what is taking place in the real world if possible. I'm just not sure how to do that in this case:( You mentioned something about using the downloaded information and then unchecking "Matched with Security online". Is this the process of using the downloaded data to accurately reflect what happened in the real world? If so, could you tell me the steps to follow?

If I were to go with the "practical" option and manually enter the split as if the company remained unchanged, would I need to update the CUSIP somehow to avoid a Security Mismatch?

Thanks Again!

q_lurker

Q1 - To be in control, I’d start that off manually as well. With a good backup, I’d

Edit the current security to change the ticker (BOIl-old)
Add the new security unique name and correct ticker (BOIL)
For simplicity, I’d use the Corporate Acquisition action to have new acquire old. Especially helpful if you had multiple lots of the old.
Now when you download, you should be able to match new to new. Since your Corp Acq did the removed and adds, you should find transaction matches or be sble to knowingly delete extraneous downloaded transactions.

Without walking through the specifics, I think that is most of the steps.

Adding to the case for the practical - I think that one security approach makes it easier to monitor longer-term performance.

Hope this helps

Ps56k2

fyi …

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/proshares-announces-etf-share-splits-210000155.html

The ETFs will reverse split shares at the following split ratios:

Ticker	ProShares ETF	Split Ratio	Old CUSIP	New CUSIP
VIXY	ProShares VIX Short-Term Futures	1:5	74347Y854	74347Y789
UVXY	ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures	1:10	74347Y839	74347Y771
BOIL	ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Natural Gas	1:20	74347Y870	74347Y763

BlueAkiva

Thank you all! You were extremely helpful, and it looks like I was able to enter my transactions correctly following your steps!!

q_lurker

Curious. Did you opt for the single-security or two-security approach? Seeing the info @Ps56k2 linked (only one name involved) made the single-security option more desirable in my opinion. YMMV.

BlueAkiva

I played around with both options but the split did involve a name change and a new CUSIP so I ended up going with the two-security approach. You were right about losing my historical data, so I'll have to track my gain/loss outside of Quicken which is unfortunate but everything else about this approach worked great and I do like that it is "accurate". The fact that these positions are short term for me was definitely a factor in my decision as the basis discrepancy won't be with me long. Had these been core, long term holdings I think I would have landed on the single-security approach. Thanks again for your help!!