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; } } }

Cost Basis Per-share Price in Holdings Doesn't Include Commissions - Was it Always That Way?

Geobrick

Maybe this has always been the way Quicken displays the per share basis price in the account Holdings overview. If so, I'm just noticing it now (Premier for Windows R53.16 build 27.1.53.16).

I was trying to trace an error in the Cost Basis of a stock after a simple single lot RtrnCap transaction (will be in separate thread). When I opened the holdings overview and saw the discrepancy. I tried checking things by multiplying the basis per share x the number of shares and it was off. I set the holdings overview date to the purchase date and while the total basis was reporting correctly, the per share price x the number of shares still didn't equal the total basis. Turns out the 'buy' transaction had a commission for $10.95 and Quicken apparently doesn't include it as part of the per share cost basis in the holdings view but does include it in the total basis.

No big deal. The total basis is correct. Maybe it's good to show the actual price per share paid but it would help if the holdings table also had a column for the commissions so we can see how it all adds up.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

q_lurker

I do not find a Holdings view (Account Overview — Value, Recent Perf, Historic Perf, or Tax Implications) that presents Average Cost per share.

I found two buy transactions with a commission recorded. In both cases in a Portfolio view customized to include Average Cost per Share

At the lot level: Cost Basis = Quote * Shares + Commission. Commission not shown in view but is included in cost basis for each lot

At the Security level (only one lot in these two cases): Cost Basis for the security = Cost Basis for the lot(s), and Average Cost per share = Cost Basis / Shares

Going a step farther, another sequence demonstrates that at the lot level: Cost Basis = Quote * Shares + Commission - RtrnCap (as applicable to the lot).

So I am seeing that Quicken (R48.8) does include the commission(s) in the Average Cost per Share presentation in Portfolio Views.

Geobrick

Interesting. Here's a screenshot from the example in my other thread showing how it looks in R53.16.
I modified the original $10,000 buy with a $10 commission.

So you don't see something like this in R48.8?

I can't say what's shown in my screenshot is wrong because $99.90 is the actual share price in this example. It's just not the avg per share which is what I am used to seeing in that column. I'm not opposed to the change, but if they stick with doing this way, it would be helpful to add a column for the commissions and fees.
Of course, I can just modify the original transaction by removing the commission and letting quicken recalculate the share price (which is what I did in my actual quicken file).

(Understanding Quicken; A new Thanksgiving Day tradition)

Geobrick

On a different computer, I installed version R48.8 (it was the downloaded R52 with the R48.8 mondo patch). I opened my test file and I'm seeing the same thing I see here. The price is not including the commission, and the Cost Basis at the lot level has the same mismatch I described in my other thread. I even tried deleting all the transactions and re-entering them. Maybe I need to start a separate file in R48.8.

Update: I started a new file with R48.8 and I no longer see the cost basis mismatch in the account holdings overview but I still see the issue discussed in this thread. The per share price shown in the account holdings overview doesn't include the fees so maybe it has always been like that by design.

q_lurker

This is what I see in R48.8 (existing transactions rather than rebuilding yours)

Transactions

04/12/2017 Bought 60 shares ETN with a 4.20 commission for a total of $4450.12 == 60 * 74.098667 + 4.20
05/19/2017 RtrnCap on ETN 60 shares of $36 = > Basis reduces to $4,414.12
08/08/2014 RtrnCap on ETN 60 shares of $36 = > Basis reduces to $4,4378.12
08/09/2017 Bought 10 shares ETN with a 0.70 commission for a total of 730.30 == 10 * 72.96 + 0.70

Relevant Portfolio view on 08/08/2017

The relevant Holding view data is (columns are Quote/Price, Shares, Market Value, Cost Basis)

The transactional prices for the two lots are correct = 74.098667 and 72.96 in both views

The Cost basis for each lot is correct = 4378.12 and 730.30 in both views

The total cost basis of both lots is correct in both views = 5108.42

The Portfolio calculates the average cost per share correctly = 72.977429 = 5108.42 / 70

All that looks exactly as I'd expect.

Are you simply confused that what I just identified as the Transactional Price in the Quote/Price column at the per lot level is the price paid / share WITHOUT commission?

To my recollection, Quicken has always presented that Quote/Price column as the transactional price at the per lot level. I have never interpreted that as average cost per share. It shows the same way in the Security Detail View / Transaction History section. So yes, Transactional Price * Shares does not equal Cost Basis.

Also, let's not get confused between the price I paid on 08/09/17 (72.96 / share) and the closing price on that date (73.14) which then leads to Market Value both for the security and at lot lines.

FWIW: any more, I rarely include commissions as a separate entry in buys and sells of securities. I see no way to easily measure those commissions within Quicken. I am fine, as applicable, just entering the shares and the total cost and then letting Quicken compute whatever price/share effectively applies.

Geobrick

Thank you q_lurker for going into the details.

Yes. I was confused by your initial answer where you presented details of the different ways various reports represented the per share basis. I thought you were not seeing what I was seeing. You were, but I missed it. It seems obvious now the account overview's expanded lot view is showing the actual share price paid without including the proportional amount for any fees and commissions and that is probably the way it has always been.

I probably just noticed it for the first time in 30 years while I was trying to figure out the cost basis mismatch from my other thread called "RtrnCap Strangeness". When I saw the total basis not matching the summed basis of a security in the holdings view, I tried doing the math myself and it didn't add up. That's when I realized the holdings view wasn't averaging the commissions and fees into the share price while the total basis included them.

You answered my question. The commissions/fees are not included in the price column of the holdings view and yes, that's the way it's always been.
I should have realized the column is called "quote/price" and not 'cost basis per share'. Quicken is correctly displaying the price I paid per share.