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; } } }

Issues with one step update and resulting placeholder transactions

jdparker225

In another discussion about a disconnect between what Quicken thought the investment holdings were for an account and what the actual holdings were, I was prompted to do some investigation that led to discovery of other issues not related to that discussion.

Issue 1: One step updates contain inconsistent data.

If I have 100 shares of IBM and sell 5 and then do a one step update the downloaded data may have the sold transaction but not the updated number of shares. Quicken will process the transaction and update its number of shares to 95 and then compare that to the number of shares the institution says the account has, which is still 100 shares. Quicken then pops up a a dialog asking me what I want to do about it and I respond by saying to create a placeholder entry and so it creates one for +5 shares making the number of shares in Quicken 100 again. In a later one step update, the FI's data has updated the number of shares to 95 and, again, Quicken notes the difference and pops a dialog and I respond by saying to create a placeholder entry and so it creates one for -5 shares making the number of shares 95. This also occurs for bought transactions.

This has all the symptoms of Quicken's generation of one step update data grabbing data from the FI's database while the FI is in the process of making updates. This is a very bad thing to do. The FI's database should be locked while it is being updated so that no other process can get data from it. In this case, Quicken may be the victim of bad practices of the FI.

This is happening exclusively in an IRA which was created from a 401K rollover in April of 2021. The FI manages it, buying and selling securities as they see fit. Because they are stock brokers, they seem to get a kick out of doing trades and there is a lot of activity in that account. :-). From June of 2021 when they started buying securities to July of 2023 there were 25 instances of the above somewhat simple scenario. There may be more such scenarios which are more complex due to a flurry of activity involving one security with more complex data mismatches. But I doubt if these types of scenarios account for all placeholder entries.

So what is the best way to clean things up?

What is the best way to avoid this kind of thing? One possibility is to do one step update only on Sunday mornings in the hope that there will be no FI database updates being performed.

Issue 2: There are lots and lots of +0 share placeholder entries.

What are these entries for? They are not the result of Quicken asking what to do with a mismatch in numbers of shares. Quicken put them there. There are no fractional shares involved.

What should I do with them?

This is almost exclusive to the IRA mentioned above in issue 1.

Issue 3: Why are there placeholder entries associated with stock splits?

On July 18, 2022 there is a StkSplit transaction for Alphabet. At the time I had 6 shares. The Share Bal column for the StkSplit transaction shows 120 shares, which is what it should be after the split. On 7/20/2022 there is an Added transaction for 144 shares bringing the balance to 234. On 7/23/2022 there is a placeholder transaction of -144 shares bring the balance back down to 120.

The same thing happened for every StkSplit for that FI except one and that was special. The first shares of that security were bought on the same day as the StkSplit. In that case the Share Bal column for the StkSplit transaction had 0. Also there was another FI that had a pair of 1 for 1 StkSplit transactions (what is that?). They didn't have any of this either.

This seems like a disconnect between what the FI thinks a StkSplit is and what Quicken thinks. Quicken thinks a StkSplit results in added shares while the FI thinks that doesn't happen and an Added transaction is needed to update the share balance. This results in the need for a placeholder transaction to get the number of shares correct.

What should I do with these placeholder transactions?

Couple of notes:

The StkSplit and Added transactions were not on the same day. The Added transaction was a day or 2 after the StkSplit transaction with the exception of the "special" ones noted above which had no Added transactions.
The descriptions of the StkSplit transactions were weird if the split was 10 or more for 1. For example the description for the 20 for 1 Alphabet StkSplit was 1 for 0.05. Not technically incorrect but who uses that kind of terminology.

Issue 4: Who is responsible for the correctness of downloaded transactions?

Somehow I'd think it would be some kind of shared responsibility. Anybody know who is responsible for what?

Thanks

Jim

Find more posts tagged with

Accepted answers

All comments

Jim_Harman

Issue 1: Often the FI download server does not update right away. Going forward, when Quicken reports a discrepancy, you should consider creating a Placeholder as a last resort. Since you have already accepted Placeholders, you will have to resolve them. If you see pairs that cancel each other out, it should be safe to delete them both.

Issue 2: Any zero-share placeholders should be safe to delete. They are most likely due to the situation you describe, where the FI's downloaded share balances are out of sync with the trading activity.

In this situation, updating on Sunday morning sounds like a good idea. Rule #1 is to investigate and if necessary repair the underlying issue rather than accepting the Placeholders in the first place.

Issue 3: There should be no Placeholders related to stock splits. FIs often download Added transactions to get the share count right rather than the split transaction, which is all Quicken needs. If Quicken sees both a Split and and Added, it will prompt you to cerate a Placeholder. The answer is No; you should fix the split by keeping the Split transaction and deleting the Added.

Issue 4: The FI is responsible for the correctness of the downloaded transactions, especially if the connection uses Direct Connect.

jdparker225

Issue 1: The issue isn't about when the download server gets updated. The point is that when the one step update data is generated the update should be either completely in or completely out. It shouldn't be partially in (transaction in, number of shares update not in). I wonder if anybody else has seen this with other FIs. For me the FI is Merrill Lynch. And this issue may be specific to the brokerage. It is possible that other ML brokerages do not this.

Issue 2: Still like to know why these +0 share placeholders are there at all. They were generated by Quicken without my responding to any 0 share discrepancies discovered by Quicken. (Quicken never popped up a dialog about a 0 share discrepancy.) I'd really like something more definitive than "…most likely due to…". To really understand this you'd probably have to look at the Quicken code.

Issue 3: It would be nice if the FIs understood that the Added transactions are not needed for StkSplit transactions and did not generate them.

Issue 4: OK, blame the FI for the Added transactions and the inconsistent data. 😉

Bottom line so far is that, going forward, I will only do one step updates for Merrill Lynch on Sundays and work out some plan to clean up as many placeholders as I can: delete the +0 ones, delete the +/- or -/+ ones from the inconsistent data that I can clearly identify, and clean up the Added/placeholder transactions for StkSplits. Then see where that leaves me. Maybe cleaning up that stuff will result in my seeing something else to ask about.

Thanks

Jim

q_lurker

Issue 1: That sounds to me like the FI may be reporting trades based on trade date, but not updating holdings until settlement date. In that context, you wrote "In a later one step update, …". How much later? Later that evening, next day, 3 days later? Answer to that would be informative with regard to my speculation.

Avoiding: But beyond that speculation, I treat every such mismatch circumstance with a jaundiced eye. I would research first and only accept either placeholder only if I could not understand the reason in a short amount of time, and likely not even then. That research would involve reviewing the info on the FI's website, which raises the question if their site exhibits the same disconnect. I know some FIs offer reports based on settlement date or trading date.

Clean up: Delete the placeholder(s) and watch for ramifications. Per your example, deleting both placeholders should counteract each other.

Issue 2: I'll defer to Jim's answer since I avoid placeholders and know little about them. I would like some clarification of your meaning. I initially created the below placeholder for 10 shares of IBM. I then backfilled in the purchase of 10 shares the day before. That backfill changed what had been +10 shares to +0 shares for the placeholder transaction. Is that the type of 0-share placeholder you are referring to? Note the Placeholder Entry description on the second line presents a clearer description of the base placeholder.

Issue 3: Some FIs incorrectly download Add Shares transactions for stock splits. That will not usually create the correct StkSplit transaction. What can happen is that if the user (or a download in another account?) creates a correct StkSplit transaction, they will get added to all accounts that hold that security at that time. Or a Download Quotes download may advise that user that they are missing a stock split and the correct transaction gets created.

Another circumstance that can occur with 'splits' is that in the details, it is actually shares of a new company being issued - that is, the CUSIP is changed as a result of the overall set of changes. That can lead to the FI download being a Remove (old shares, old CUSIP) and Add Shares (same name, same ticker, new CUSIP). Rigorously speaking, that is correct. If that approach is used, what typically gets overlooked is the basis and specific lots of the prior holding. For me in that type of situation, I prefer the StkSplit transaction and then independently addressing the CUSIP and security matching considerations.

Delete the Added Share transactions and any associated placeholders.

Issue 4: Who is responsible for the correctness of downloaded transactions? My somewhat flippant answer is "the user" but I offer that with some sincerity. I do not believe the user should accept that because the info came from the FI, it must be correct. The FI does not know what the user needs for their Quicken data. I do not believe Quicken should alter the downloaded data (for any type of account!). The programmers are not in a position to identify that some Added Shares transaction is a stock split versus something else. So I see it that the FI is responsible for creating a 'reasonable' set of transactions, Quicken is responsible for using that data as best it can, and the user is ultimately responsible that the resulting transactions reflect reality to the best of their needs.

Regarding my perspective that Quicken should not alter data, I am somewhat on my own there particularly for non-investment accounts as auto-categorization, and payee renaming and similar user-friendly (?) features keep getting added to the programming. Treating Quicken as a black box that keeps fully aligned with reality without user oversight is a recipe for problems, in my opinion.

Thanks for reading. Hope this helps.

PS: I was called away while composing this and had not read your intervening message before sending my reply off. While the timing doesn't reflect it, our two posts did sort of cross each other.

jdparker225

In response to q_lurker

Issue 1: "How much later?" It varies but not the same day

"Avoiding:" This is a managed IRA we are talking about. The FI does lots and lots of trades. It would be very difficult to do the research to truly keep up with it. I know it's "pay me now or pay me later" and I'm paying now. Maybe I can work out some compromise solution by doing periodic sweeps.

"Cleanup:" I intend to delete what I understand and, then, assess where I am. I will not just delete them all. Some relate to securities that are no longer in the account. I would be afraid that deleting those might result in the appearance of my account still having some.

Issue 2: My experience has been that "the Placeholder Entry description on the second line" shows the share balance after applying the placeholder adjustment. I don't think your backfilling a transaction is representative of what has happened in my situation.

Issue 3: Ah ha! Your discussion of CUSIP resulted in my connecting some dots that I had missed relative to the my other discussion related to mismatched holdings in the IRA. I won't talk about that here. Will post something on that discussion.

Issue 4: Basically do not agree. Quicken needs to consider what the FI has as truth and keep its view in sync with that. If there is a problem with the account, I should go to the FI. I should not have to deal with a disconnect between Quicken view and FI view. That might mean getting all the FIs and Quicken (and other finance software vendors) to agree on a set of protocols (In defense software contracting that would be an Interface Control Document (ICD) or Interface Requirements Specification (IRS)) and that might be a daunting task and include forming some kind of governing body to settle disputes and maintain those protocols. But before that happens we may have to live with the user doing what he/she can.

Thanks

Jim

Jim_Harman

How much do you care about the internal transactions in this managed account?

Since it is an IRA, the cost basis does not matter. If you care mainly about the account balance, you might consider putting this account in Simple mode. In Simple mode each time you update the account online it will add or remove shares to make your holdings match the FI's records.

jdparker225

You are correct that with an IRA you do not care about cost basis and lots.

I have 2 data files that originally had the two different approaches to fixing the problem in the other discussion that I was going to do some "double booking" with. I'll try the Simple mode in one of them and see how it goes.

Thanks

Jim

Jim_Harman

Note that one downside of using Simple mode is that if you later decide you want the full detail and switch back to Complete mode, there will be a significant amount of cleanup to reconstruct and add the missing transactions.

q_lurker

@jdparker225 wrote re his issue #4:

That might mean getting all the FIs and Quicken (and other finance software vendors) to agree on a set of protocols

That is basically what the OFX group (since 1997) and the more current FDX standards (since 2018 and now including OFX) are all about. Still not there and no real enforcement that ‘it shall be done this way!’.

jdparker225

OK, I deleted all the placeholders I understand and that got rid of all but 4 (now 6). More about that later.

First, backed up, then

deleted all +0 placeholders. That got rid of a lot.
deleted those associated with stock splits, deleting the Added transaction following the StkSplit and the placeholder that followed it. Those were pretty easy to spot if transactions are sorted by security.
deleted those resulting from conflicting data because the FL did not update the number of shares. Some were pretty easy to spot and delete: there would be a buy n shares, a placeholder for -n shares and a placeholder for +n share. Or a sell, +, - set. However, sometimes there was a real flurry of buys and/or sells over a short period of time (same day or couple of days) and that resulted in a more complex placeholder set. Basically I looked for a set of +'s and -'s that totaled 0 and deleted them.

As I went along, I periodically did a reconcile shares on the account. Once I did make a mistake and deleted something I should not have and I caught it by doing this. More on that in the discussion of the 4 (6) remaining placeholders.

I'd like to know where those +0 placeholders come from. There were quite a few even before the others caused by spits and inconsistent data. I noticed that, if I found a +,- pair and deleted the first of the pair, the second would become a +0. One way this could have happened is if Quicken inserted a placeholder and then one step update provided a transaction with date prior to that placeholder. Is that something that could happen? Why doesn't Quicken simply delete all +0 placeholders?

Suggestion to the OFX group on the other 2: make StkSplit, Bought, and Sold transactions pending transactions. Once they become "final", which means that the share numbers are updated, issue an Added or Removed transaction containing the transaction ID(s) (I believe that is FITID) of the associated StkSplit/Bought/Sold transaction(s). I see no reason why one Added or Removed transaction could not cover more than one transaction of multiple types.

Now to the 4 (6) remaining placeholders.

The first two (now 4) are a pair. This was the sequence in Quicken:

Placeholder for -7 Blackrock Inc
Removed transaction for 7 "Blackrock Inc Pay Date 10/02/2024". Date of transaction 10/02/2024.
Placeholder for +7 "Blackrock Inc Pay Date 10/02/2024" (The purpose of this was to bring the number of shares from -7 to 0.)

Originally I mistakenly removed the two placeholders not seeing the "Pay Date 10/02/2024" in the second one and thus thinking they were a -+ pair. Doing the reconcile shares caught that and I told Quicken to put in placeholders and they were restored just not in the same place. Then I started looking around in Merrill Lynch statements and the last 90 days of 2024 of qfx data still on the web site and in Quicken's security list and Quicken's transaction history. Then (oops) I clicked on a qfx file instead of right clicking on it and opening it in Notepad++. That caused Quicken to process the file. There were no transactions to process but Quicken did its update of holdings and found the same disconnect it found (and corrected with the placeholders) during the reconcile. Curious about what it would do, I responded by having Quicken create placeholders. That resulted in two new placeholders both +0. And the dates of the placeholders are weird. I did the reconcile on 1/15/2024 or 1/16/2025 and the oops on 1/17/2025. The dates of each pair are 1/1/2025 and 1/11/2025. I then proceeded to correctly look into the data. There is a "Blackrock Inc Pay Date 10/02/2024" in my securities list with a CUSIP of 09247X01 (its symbol is the same as its CUSIP) and there is a Blackrock Inc with CUSIP of 09290D101 and symbol of BLK. There is a purchase of 1 share of CUSIP 09247X01 in the qfx file and that matches a 7/23/2024 purchase in an ML statement. In that qfx transaction the security name is "BLACKROCK INC PRICE SHOWN IS AVERAGE PRICE. DETAILS RE". This name actually appears in a <MEMO> tag. There are no purchases of that security in Quicken's transaction history. There is a removed transaction for 7 shares of CUSIP 09247X01 matching the removed transaction in Quicken's transaction history in a qfx file but nothing in any statement matching it. The name in <MEMO> has the "Pay Date 10/02/2024" in it. There are a number transactions for both CUSIPs in the qfx files I have. Quicken's transaction history has only one transaction for "Blackrock Inc Pay Date 10/02/2024", the remove.

I have no idea what to make of this. Maybe the broker can explain it. My inclination is to leave as is until I understand it. Does CUSIP 09247X01 have any relationship to CUSIP 09290D101?

Another one has the following sequence:

1. 9/30/2021: sold "Constellation Brands Inc…" 2 shares.

2. 10/1/2021: sold "Constellation Brands Inc…" 1 share.

3. 10/09/2021: Placeholder for +3 shares to bring share balance from -3 to 0.

There are no other transactions in Quicken's transaction history for this security. The Oct 2021 ML statement said that these securities were purchased on 6/23/2021. I am missing the ML statements for 4/2021-9/2021. Need to talk to my broker about that.

The final placeholder appears as the last transaction for Sylvamo Corp.

10/09/2021 Placeholder for -3 shares to bring share balance to 0

The transaction history has buys and sells that total 0 but then towards the end (prior to the last couple of sells), all occurring before 2022, there is an Added transaction for 3 shares. Without that added transaction there would be no need for the place holder. Where did this added transaction come from? Complicating this is that Googling Sylvamo shows that it was spun off from International Paper on 10/1/2021. Quicken's transaction history shows purchase on 6/23/2021 which is more than 3 months prior to its creation. The CUSIP in securities list appears correct based on googling the CUSIP.

The only placeholders left associated with securities that are still in my holdings are the 2 for Blackrock Inc (the one with CUSIP of 09290D101). It has an interesting capital gains: a market value of $d.cc, a cost basis of -0.01 (negative 1 penny), a gain of $d.cc+.01, and a % gain/loss of -(d.cc+.01)*10,000 (Yes a large % loss). All the other holdings have reasonable looking capital gains stuff.

I have verified by comparison with a version of the data file without the placeholder deletions that I did not mess things up doing the deletions.

I know this is a long post but are there any ideas?

Thanks

Jim

Jim_Harman

I have not digested everything you posted above but note that Placeholders are what you might call dynamic transactions. They force the share balance to be the value in the Placeholder. The Placeholder + or - quantity shows the difference between the number of shares reported by the FI when the Placeholder was created and the number of shares currently in Quicken prior to the Placeholder.

If later on a transaction is downloaded, edited, deleted, or manually entered for a date prior to the Placeholder that change makes the balance in Quicken equal to the Placeholder value, the Placeholder will change to zero. At that point it is generally safe to delete the Placeholder.

q_lurker

re: Blackrock stuff, I see here that effective 10/1/24, Blackrock merged with GIP that included some merger aspects. That may be where the CUSIP changes came about. Reference:

https://ir.blackrock.com/news-and-events/press-releases/press-releases-details/2024/BlackRock-Announces-Expected-Closing-Date-for-Acquisition-of-Global-Infrastructure-Partners/default.aspx

So the brokerage may well have removed your original BLK holding with an older CUSIP and then added shares of the 'new' Blackrock with the same BLK ticker but a new CUSIP. My preference would be to see in my records continuity of the holding under the original Quicken security with the CUSIP changing to get continued downloaded data. I don't have any insight as to what the PAY DATE means.

Importing QFX files: repeating a previously imported QFX will normally ignore any transactions because the FITIDs are remembered. But it does not surprise me that placeholders would be recreated. The QFX should be reporting the holdings as of a specific date (1/1/25? 1/11/25?). If the holding Quicken shows on that date differ from what the QFX file says applies on that date, a placeholder should get created for that date. No way for it to backdate to the October timeframe.

Sylvamo: Did you own shares of International Paper on Oct 1, 2021? That is when the spinoff took place - 1 share of Sylvamo for each 11 shares of IP. Pretty predicable that you might get 3 shares added if you had 33 to 43 shares of IP. Were the shares of IP acquired on 6/23/21? Since the spunoff Sylvamo shares would carry the acquisition date from the parent IP, that might explain why 'purchase' of the shares was back-dated. There have been some varied preferences offered over the years on how spinoffs should be handled, not all of them valid. Back-dating the 'purchase' has never been one I would recommend.

All in all, sounds like more placeholders you can delete.

jdparker225

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/comment/20472146#Comment_20472146

Don't have time to look into the other things but I can comment on Sylvamo: yes I did have shares of International Paper and there are buy/sell/div transactions going from 6/23/2021 until 10/10/2022 when last share was sold. But remember I have buy/sell/div transactions for Sylvamo from 6/23/2021 through 10/8/2021 plus the Added (10/5/2021) for 3 shares and a Miscinc (10/6/2021) for +$11.14 cash. On 10/9/2021 there is the placeholder for -3 to bring number of shares to 0. The CUSIP for International Paper is 460146103, Sylvamo's is 871332102 - if that matters. Part of the mystery is: why do I have transactions for a security before it existed? That doesn't make sense to me.

Thanks

Jim

q_lurker

But remember I have buy/sell/div transactions for Sylvamo from 6/23/2021 through 10/8/2021 plus the Added (10/5/2021) for 3 shares and a Miscinc (10/6/2021) for +$11.14 cash.

I realize that. The Added Shares is consistent with the spinoff. When you edit that transaction, does it show an acquisition date and cost? If so, likely it was from a Quicken Corporate Spinoff action. If those fields are blank, it was likely a download from the brokerage.

The MiscInc is likely a cash-in-lieu payment. Again likely from the brokerage. The correct entry would have been a sale of fractional shares of Sylvamo that you were due at the 1-for-11 spinoff ratio. That usually requires user intervention to get right.

I am not aware of any action within Quicken's programming that would have generated a back-dated Buy associated with a corporate spinoff action. I am aware some some users recommended that approach. I never have. I offer no other explanation for your file showing Sylvamo shares being bought in June 2021. That does not make sense to me either. As I see it, IP paid a dividend 9/15/21 at a $0.5125/sh rate.

The placeholder requiring 0 Sylvamo shares on 10/9/21 is consistent with a brokerage download on 10/9/21 prior to the 10/8/21 sale being entered.

jdparker225

Yes the added transaction is for the International Paper spinoff and the Misinc is for cash in lieu of fractional shares. That's what the second line of the transactions basically say when you select them. The price and date acquired are blank in the added transaction.

Here is something interesting: prior to the added transaction the buy or sale price was $210 to $223. The price of the sales (no buys) after the add was in $26 range which is correct for the Sylvamo that was spun off. If I display holdings and put in a date between, say. 6/23/2021 and, 9/1/2021 it shows a holding for Sylvamo with price in the $200 range. After the add and before all shares removed, the price is in $26 range. So the add and 2 sales following the add, which sold all the spinoff shares are for the spunoff Sylvamo. All the previous transactions were for something else. At the time of the add, there were 3 shares of this other Sylvamo left from a original purchase of 25 shares. There is no sell transaction for those three remaining other Sylvamo shares. The placeholder is accounting for that since I don't have any Sylvamo shares. If I can get ML statements from the 6/2021 to 9/2021 time frame, maybe I can make some sense of it.

Thanks

Jim

jdparker225

I must have made a mistake downloading the ML statements. I went back to web site and found them. I now have the statements for April-Sept of 2021. There is a mix up between Constellation Brands (STZ/219350105) and Sylvamo (SLVM/8713321102). All the Sylvamo transactions prior to the add are really transactions for Constellation Brands. The share prices for Constellation Brands match up with the share prices shown in Quicken for the pre-add prices for Sylvamo. If I were to change all the pre-add Sylvamo transactions to Constellation Brands transactions, the need for placeholders for both of those securities would go away. That would leave only the "Blackrock Inc*" related placeholders remaining. I can't be 100% sure yet because I haven't checked all transactions from June 2021 to Sept 2021 but I've checked enough to be about 95% certain.

How could this have happened?

I also now have the data to look at for the Blackrock Inc stuff.

It's not a trivial exercise because transaction dates between statements and Quicken do not match.

Thanks

Jim

jdparker225

q_lurker, it appears that you were right about Blackrock.

I think that prior to 10/2/2024 the CUSIP of Blackrock was 09247X101 and after it was 0929D101. The qfx data I have show Backrock transactions before 10/2/2024 using 09247X101 and after using 0929D101.

Quicken's security list has a Security called "BLACKROCK INC PAY DATE 10/02/2024" with a CUSIP of 09247X101 and another called Blackrock Inc with a CUSIP of 09290D101.

The statement shows an exchange of 7 shares (listed as a +/- pair) and the qfx data has two exchange transactions: a plus 7 for 09290D101 and -7 for 09247X101. Quicken's transaction history has an Added 7 shares for BlackRock Inc and a Removed 7 shares for "BLACKROCK INC PAY DATE 10/02/2024".

However, it also seems that all the old transactions were, somehow, transferred over to the new CUSIP. So the add for BlackRock Inc raised its share count to 14 and the remove for "BLACKROCK INC PAY DATE 10/02/2024" made its share count -7. This made the placeholders for Blackrock* necessary. So if I delete the 10/2/2024 add for BLACKROCK INC and the remove for "BLACKROCK INC PAY DATE 10/02/2024", it will eliminate the need for the Blackrock* placeholders.

So assuming that my analysis of the Constellation Brands/Sylvamo issue confirms my belief, that takes care of all the placeholders.

I think. My mind is mush right now.

Please don't close this thread right now. I want to make the edits and see what happens first.

Thanks

Jim

jdparker225

I have confirmed my analysis of Constellation Brands/Sylvamo issue. So I modified all the Sylvamo transactions prior to the 10/05/2021 Sylvamo add to "CONSTELLATION BRANDS INC PRICE SHOWN IS AVERAGE PRICE. DETAILS REGARDING ACTUAL". This matches the name in the security list and the name in the post 10/5/2021 transactions. This cleared up the need for the Sylvamo and "CONSTELLATION BRANDS INC PRICE SHOWN IS AVERAGE PRICE DETAILS REGARDING ACTUAL" placeholders. Because my IRA no longer has either of those securities in its holdings, that would not affect the share reconciliation.

But that is a dumb security name. What is the best way to change the security name so that it is "CONSTELLATION BRANDS INC" in the security list and all the transactions? That will also match the security name in the ML statements.

I also deleted the 10/02/2024 add/remove transactions for BLACKROCK* and that cleared up the need for BLACKROCK* placeholders.

So, for the moment at least, my IRA has no placeholders. What remains a mystery is how many of those placeholders got there. Some can be explained by Quicken and the FIs not being in sync with respect to what the transactions mean and that is something that should be addressed. Until then users just have to deal with it. But for many there is no explanation.

Thanks

Jim

q_lurker

To change the security name:

Ctrl-y to access the security list
Click on security
Edit Details button
Enter your preferred name in the Name field
Click on OK button

That will change every transaction using that ‘poor’ name to your preferred name in all accounts.

Name does NOT need to match name brokerage uses. (I’d certainly prefer First letter capitalized for readability but choose what looks right to you.)

Because you no longer hold this security, I suggest unchecking the Matched with online security box if it is checked. This should prevent any mismatches with current securities.

jdparker225

Thanks. That's what I was hoping it would be but was worried that it would create a security list-transaction mismatch that would mess things up.

Jim

interalia

I just started using Quicken 3 months ago, so I am Not very experienced. I have just processed 700+ days of transactions from Baird.

From watching the Play Louder YouTube Quicken videos I set the Preference for Downloading to Not Automatically Add Transactions. Then they go onto a Review List (shown below the register) where you have to Accept them individually or all.

This would allow you to see partially reported sales and hold off accepting them until complete. I like doing it that way even though it takes some time it reminds me of the activity on my account. I leave Sales and Splits for a few days to see if any more transactions occur.

Suggestion for Quicken: There should be a way to "Accept All" of a Type. I would like to Accept All the Dividends as they never cause trouble.

—-

I also often saw where Stock Splits are also dup reported as Add Shares resulting in too many Shares. My fix is to edit the Added Shares and change the number of shares added to Zero. I note that number in the description text. After if the Position Total Shares is correct then I delete the Add Shares.

I saw several Stock Splits with decimals like you describe e.g. 1 for .05. I'll edit to be 20 for 1 and see the total shares is right. I had some ugly ones that were like 7 for 5 that the decimal version 1 for 0.715285 would not get the exact number of share right. So didn't but scared to edit the Split. I note the original numbers on the Description text.

Jim_Harman

@interalia Welcome! It sounds like you are on the right track and a Latin scholar, among other things!

jdparker225

I did one step update this morning (1/25/2025) and got 3 stocks in the IRA that had disconnects between Quicken and ML on the number of shares. As I have always done, I responded by choosing to create placeholders. Then I went to the web site to see what it said and there was a little icon next to each of those stocks (and only those stocks) indicating that there was something pending. There are no transactions either on the web site or downloaded to Quicken that match the discrepancies. This means to me that the share counts have been updated but the transactions themselves have not been posted and that sometime later the transactions will be posted and I will get them in Quicken to account for the differences (and result in more discrepancies and I can delete the placeholders to get rid of those discrepancies).

This is the opposite of what I thought was happening which was that I was getting the transaction before the share count update.

When this situation occurs, I am guessing that there is no way the bottom line value of the account in Quicken is going to agree with what is on the web site whether I respond to ignore the difference or create a placeholder. This would be because (again, guessing) the proceeds from a sale or cost of a buy have not been reflected in the cash balance. Therefore I will continue to create placeholders as an indicator that there is a discrepancy or, really, something pending. I will just have to more frequently clean them up.

Thanks

Jim

q_lurker

My strategy would likely to be NOT create the placeholders, but perhaps put in a Reminder transaction that pending transactions may apply. Perhaps my aversion to placeholders is overblown. Perhaps the preference to Show hidden transactions and the presentation of placeholders at the bottom of the transactions list view are enough to make them manageable.

jdparker225

A part of the puzzle has been solved: Where did all those +0 placeholders come from? There were buys and sells on Friday, Jan 24, and the number of shares were updated but the transactions remained pending. Because of this, when I did one-step update on Jan 25, there were differences in number of shares between Quicken and ML and I created placeholders which were dated 1/25/2025. On 1/28/2025 I did osu again and the transactions came in with date 1/24/2025 which was before the date of the placeholders. These backfilled the placeholders and they became +0 placeholders.

Now I’m a bit curious about exactly what the sequence of events is that results in matching +/-n placeholders. I thought I understood this one but now I am not so sure. I am going to revert to my old behavior of doing frequent osu and see if I can recreate the situation and catch it in the act.

Thanks

Jim

Boatnmaniac

Now I’m a bit curious about exactly what the sequence of events is that results in matching +/-n placeholders. I thought I understood this one but now I am not so sure.

The process is very simple. The brokerage downloads to Quicken the number of shares held each time you run OSU. Quicken then compares that number to the number of shares that are recorded in Quicken. Quicken does not look at specific historical shares transactions….it just compares the downloaded total to the total holdings in Quicken. If there is a discrepancy, depending on your settings, Quicken will either prompt you to decide whether or not to add a Placeholder or Quicken will automatically generate a Placeholder.

The date of the Placeholder will always be the date the Placeholder transaction was generated. Quicken does not create Placeholders for earlier than the current date. It's simply based upon a snapshot of the data on the date the Placeholder was created.

Once a Placeholder has been generated, that Placeholder date does not change. This is good because it then tells us that the cause of the shares count discrepancy occurred prior to that date, not after that date, which can be very helpful when troubleshooting the discrepancy.

Resolution of Placeholders involves entering missing shares transactions or editing incorrect shares transactions BEFORE the date of the Placeholder. Once this is done and the discrepancy no longer exists, the Placeholder quantity will be changed to 0. Then the Placeholder can be deleted.

For some reason ML downloaded the updated shares qty data on 1/24 but did not download the 1/24 transaction until 1/28. This caused Quicken to think there was a shares quantity discrepancy which was the reason for the Placeholder. Once the 1/24 transaction was downloaded on 1/28 the discrepancy no longer existed so the count in the Placeholder was automatically reduced to zero. If you have not already done so, you can now delete that Placeholder.

Does this answer your question?