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; } } }

archiving an investment register with closed transactions on a securities does not hide the security

questionsforever

when i archived some investment registers with closed old transactions, the security symbols are still in the securities list and i have to auto-hide them. Shouldn't this occur automatically @Quicken Alyssa when the register is archived?

Also, if there is no way to delete closed transaction securities is there a way to move them to a separate archived securities list at least?

Finally, how do I auto-hide batch-mode several securities in the securities list dialog? It takes forever to hide them one by one.

Find more posts tagged with

Investments

Comments

q_lurker

I would consider it presumptuous that just because an account was closed, all securities used in that account (and not currently used in other accounts) would also be hidden and less accessible. Why should the programmers expect that because you were finished with that security in that account, you are not interested in that security anywhere else in the future?

is there a way to move them to a separate archived securities list at least?

No.

Chris_QPW

I would consider it more than presumptuous; I would consider it a bug.

What's more there seems to be the assumption that the only use for archiving old transactions actually means that you are finished with that security in the original account. It archives "closed security lots". I could certainly have many unclosed security lots. Also, the main reason people are using this function is for "performance", not to hide anything. This is really a workaround for the fact that if you have a lot of transactions/securities/security lots in a given investment account the performance in that account goes done. If this didn't occur almost no one would be using this feature. It was never intended as a "hide" function.