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; } } }

GE Aerospace Portfolio Report with Closed Lots has some wrong numbers of shares sold.

tvicki

I am on Version R58.9 Build 27.1.58.9 Quicken Classic Business & Personal and Windows 10 Home.

The Security Report is correct showing the correct sales. The Portfolio Report with Closed Lots shows the correct date that shares were sold but half of them show the wrong number of shares sold although the Cost Basis is correct for the real number of shares sold. This security has 1 lot and has 14 sales.

You may/will remember that last month I had a problem with: "I have 1 security with 1 lot and that lot's Cost Basis does not equal the Total Cost Basis." That was resolved. I never looked closely at the Portfolio Report with Closed Lots and don't usually use the report (particularly when the security only has one lot as this one does although I think the report could be more helpful if the security has more than 1 lot).

I don't know if there is any easy fix for this.

I have included the Security Report and the Portfolio report with Closed Lots:

Portfolio Rpt and Security Rpt 20240810.pdf

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

tvicki

Here is the Capital Gains Report and it is correct. (It appears to me that the Portfolio Report with Closed Lots does not influence anything.)

GE Capital Gains Report.pdf

q_lurker

Once again, this appears related to whether the lots have been specified as coming from the one available lot. Baffling.

First, I observed that your listed Sold lots were not in chronological order. One from 2003 was listed before the others. Odd.

Then in my version of your transactions, I found that the latter 2 or 3 sold lots were not listed at all. Also odd. But also, all the listed Sold lots showed the correct number of shares sold, not what you were seeing.

So in my version I found that at that point, the lots were not specified for most transactions, which I had discovered was your prior issue. Puzzling mostly because I would have though I left that set fully specified. Maybe I didn't. Or maybe somehow Quicken changed them to unspecified?

Anyway, I then went through, reviewed all 14 Sold transactions, made sure they all specified the lot. At which point, the shares did not match the actual transaction shares sold, just as you observed.))

So I am seeing:

Specify the lots on the sales and the share count is misrepresented as you observed in a Portfolio view including the Show closed lots option, or
Do not specify the lots on the sales and the lots cost basis can be messed up in the portfolio view per our prior discussion. (below)

As the the number of shares being presented when the lot for the sale is specified — That is basically the number of 'original' shares sold in that sale. That is, where 100 shares were sold 1/20/1998 but the portfolio view is showing 25. The originally purchased shares had undergone two 2-for-1 splits. So selling 100 post-split shares was equivalent to selling 25 original shares. After the later 3-for-1 split, the effect becomes a factor of 12. 500 post-split shares were effectively 41.666667 (500/12) original shares. So there is some meaningful(?) arithmetic in play. It is just a bad application of the arithmetic. Why one share count appears in one case and a different share count appears for a should-be-identical case is baffling.

I am linking my earlier bug report to this discussion in hopes that both these pparently related problems van be addressed at the same time.

The prior discussion, for general reference.

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7954496/i-have-1-security-with-1-lot-and-that-lots-cost-basis-does-not-equal-the-total-cost-basis

tvicki

Thanks! (In the future I will try to look closely at the security before I do a sale or a stock split.)

q_lurker

My view would be that specifying the lot sold for each sale is the better choice, even though it makes this view flaky.