moneydance and mutual fund accounts
I like moneydance for a lot of reasons. It is very easy to use for keeping track of my accounts. The main problem I have with it is in the way it handles transactions in my mutual fund accounts. Almost all of my investments are mutual funds that I purchase directly from the fund companies. There is no cash balance in the account. Sales and purchases of shares are handled by transfers to and from my bank accounts. Essentially all my investment transactions are, in moneydance terms, BuyXfr, SellXfr, and DivReinvest. I've come to find out that unfortunately, moneydance handles all of these types of transactions as splits. I wouldn't particularly care how they are handled internally, but it turns out this way of handling the transactions shows up in undesirable ways in many places, primarily by showing the amount of each transaction as $0.00. For example, in the Investment Transactions and Transactions reports, each and every investment transaction shows up with $0.00 as the amount. Likewise in the displays of reminders, all my scheduled transactions show up with $0.00 amounts. Worst of all is in the confirmation sidebar of 20ll preview, as each investment transaction in my bank accounts not only shows up with the same $0.00 amount, but also with the category as "splits..." instead of with the investment account on the other end of the transaction. The effect is that all of my investment transactions near the same time show up as potential matches for every downloaded transaction, and all look identical (unless I mouse over each one to see what's in the "split"). I suppose it could help if I separated each transaction into separate "Buy" or "Sell" and "Xfr" transactions, but that would double the work necessary to enter them, not to mention cluttering up the account registers w/ meaningless transactions. I could go on about the lack of a share balance column in registers, inaccurate calculations of Return on Investment, and so on, and I have in some other posts. Here my main point is that I find myself more and more underwhelmed w/ moneydance's ability to track my investments in a convenient and efficient way, due in large part to what is in my opinion an awkward way of handling my investment transactions .
2 Posted by paleolith on 12 Apr, 2011 06:19 PM
The really odd thing is that a "Buy" shows the correct amount, and yet like all double-entry txns, the total of all parts is zero. It appears to me that the problem is that for many reports MD knows how to report one side of the txn, but in these reports it is reporting the sum of all sides instead of the desired side.
Edward
3 Posted by zeke on 12 Apr, 2011 06:44 PM
edward
I think the transaction is handled basically from the point of view of the cash balance in the investment account. In that sense the transaction is $0. X amount comes in from say a bank account, and the same amount goes out to buy shares. There is no net change in cash balance so it gets reported as $0. I kind of think this is the limitation in the way moneydance handles accounts. It seems to assume that the investment account is a real account so to speak, with all transactions going thru it, whereas in the kind of accounts I have, the investment "account" is basically rrelevent. It's pretty much a container for a mutual fund account.
4 Posted by paleolith on 13 Apr, 2011 12:03 AM
Your explanation about MD only reporting the effect on the cash balance makes sense. There's cash involved on the Other Side, but it's reporting investment transactions. But then it also thinks the only side that should be reported is the investment side. In a way the problem, then, is that MD does NOT treat the txns as splits.
A DivReinvest doesn't move anything through the cash balance. If it were recorded as a split with the dividend first going into the cash balance and then buying shares, it would show on the report (if the theory is correct). It might show two canceling txns, but at least it would show them.
A SellXfr also doesn't anything through the cash balance, plus it considers the investment account to be the primary side for reporting, so it doesn't show anything. Again, if the txn were recorded as a split first going to the cash balance and then transferring out of the cash balance, it would probably show on the reports.
Or to put it another way, in reporting MD assumes that everything goes through the "investment account", which it equates to the cash balance in the investment account, but it allows txns like DivReinvest and SellXfr to skip going through the investment account.
MD already represents securities internally the same way it does currencies, which to my mind is exactly correct. Since I only use USD, I don't have any experience with MD reporting for transfers from accounts in one currency to accounts in another currency. But I haven't heard any screaming, so I assume that works. The main thing that needs to be done is to make operations with securities work as well as operations which cross currencies. (If I'm correct about multiple-currency txns working correctly.)
This seems to me to be very closely related to the suggestion I just posted regarding balances and reconciling in investment accounts. The problem there, also, lies in ignoring the securities.
I think MD has to decide whether it's going to manage investments or not. It will be a shame if they don't improve this, because it's not that far from being satisfactory for minor investors like me. As it stands, though, I'd do almost as well just keeping a spreadsheet. I find MD's handling of investments to be embarrassing.
Edward
5 Posted by zeke on 13 Apr, 2011 01:19 AM
Edward
I'm not sure I follow all of what you're saying, but BuyXfr, SellXfr and DivReinvest are recorded as splits, although the way they appear in various places is confusing. In the Transactions report, you see the two cancelling parts of the "split" for BuyXfr and DivReinvest transactions (presumably SellXfr as well), if you look at transactions from the Investment account side. On the other hand if you look at the source account for the funds in a BuyXfr transaction (e.g. a checking account) in the same report, you just see the transaction category as "- 2 splits - ". You see a similar thing in the v2011 confirmation sidebar , where there you can mouse over the category showing "2 splits" and see the two cancelling transactions. For some reason the Investment Transactions report doesn't show the two parts of the split, I guess because it is just showing the "net", which is $0 in terms of the cash balance.
6 Posted by paleolith on 13 Apr, 2011 04:19 AM
OK, I now see the splits you're talking about in the reports. Took me a while to figure out I had to check the "show splits" box, duh.
But I do not see these in the accounts. Neither in the investment account nor in the "other side". Are we perhaps looking at different MD versions? I'm looking at MD2011 build 778. Perhaps they are working in this area as we speak? Or perhaps there's some display option that we have set differently? I just see no sign of splits in the account views, only in the reports.
I can't find the "confirmation sidebar" that you mention.
This still confirms that MD is treating the cash balance as equivalent to the entire investment account. In the cash-for-shares transactions, it should be treating them as cash converted to shares. Instead, it's treating cash and shares as equivalent. I can see where this creates problems in reports, since an accurate report would need to show the cash balance and the share balance for all securities. That's not feasible, but we still need useful reports. I'm sure that people who do more investing than I do have better reports.
Edward
7 Posted by zeke on 13 Apr, 2011 11:41 AM
Here is a link to a discussion about the confirmation sidebar and splits, which is used for confirming/merging downloaded transactions:
http://help.infinitekind.com/discussions/md2010-beta/120-problem-w-...
This where I learned that the BuyXfr transactions are treated as splits. I think the only place that one can see the split aspect in account registers is in the tiny little "s" shown in the account used to supply funds for the buy.
8 Posted by paleolith on 13 Apr, 2011 12:23 PM
Thanks for the link. So that's what that funny-looking dollar sign is. ;-) Seriously, I thought it was a $ because of the way the font at a small size interacts with the low resolution of monitors. Until now I had not figured it out. Bad choice of marker.
Anyway, it does make sense for BuyXfr and the like to be treated as splits. And after all, every txn is a two-way split (source and sink); what we actually call a split txn is a three-way or more-way split. The problem is the way that they are presented, and the fact that investment handling in MD needs a lot of work.
Now I realize what you mean by confirmation sidebar. I don't download txns, so I wasn't familiar with it.
Edward
9 Posted by zeke on 15 Apr, 2011 01:32 PM
Actually, as far as I understand, I don't think moneydance handles investment accounts and/or investment transactions completely properly. For example, if you create an Income and Expenses report, the transfers out from the cash balance to shares is shown as an expense. How can it be an expense when the value is still in the account in the form of shares of a security? Current value will vary because of unrealized capital gains and losses, but the value hasn't left the account, it's just been changed into another form. I'm no expert on accounting or investments, but calling the transfer to shares in the same account an expense doesn't seem right. It certainly isn't intuitively obvious to me that you should handle it that way.
10 Posted by paleolith on 15 Apr, 2011 02:13 PM
Yes, certainly we need an accounting expert here ... but I do agree that buying shares is not an expense as I use the word.
However, it's also clear that viewpoints vary. I've seen this on the moneydance-info mailing list over the years. Whether you call it an expense or not, some people are primarily concerned with their cash flow, and want reports to reflect that. Others are more concerned with total value, as you express it, and want reports to reflect that. Which is correct in an accounting sense is less important than what people need. And since most people don't know accounting terminology (not even as well as you and I, who know enough to be dangerous), MD has to try to toe a middle ground between accounting rigor and practical accessibility.
Still, I think MD could do better, especially in helping people learn the differences, why they need different reports, and what the differences are. MD has been resolutely double-entry (from the beginning AFAIK), so it hasn't shied away from accounting rigor. But explanations have never been its strong point. Even a couple of short sentences of explanation attached to each report would go a long way to help users understand better what's going on.
Edward
Support Staff 11 Posted by Tom Freeman on 18 Apr, 2011 01:48 PM
Hi,
I have attached a md file of a buyxfer from a checking account to an investment account. The transaction does not appear in the expense and income report. The zero total I think you are referring to is the transaction amount total. The reason this is zero is that you transferred the amount over from checking. In the example notice that there is a reduction in checking total. The money for the purchase came from your checking not the investment account, but the asset is now held in your investment account. In the example, the side bar illustrates how the transaction is zeroed out. If you are always transferring the buys and sells out of the investment account, the transaction amount will always be zero because you are moving and holding the results of that transaction in another account.
I hope this helps
Tom
12 Posted by paleolith on 18 Apr, 2011 03:03 PM
Tom, please refer back to zeke's OP, where he clearly stated that his concern is the Transactions and Investment Transactions reports.
Your attempt to explain that the report is correct IS THE PROBLEM.
Yes, we know that these are account-to-account transfers. But when I view a report called Investment Transactions, I want to know what I've transferred into and out of the investment accounts! Or stated another way, of what possible use to me is a report which shows all transactions as having a net of zero, with no details? What possible use is that?
The Transactions report at least can show both sides. But if I ask for transactions on the investment account, what I get is transactions ON THE CASH BALANCE. OK, because buy and sell are split through the cash balance, this shows all transactions, but in a confusing way: a SellXfr is a positive amount on the security. Txns on the securities within the investment account are not shown. Only by reporting on the individual security can I report with reasonable numbers. And the Investment Transactions report does not enable me to report on multiple securities at once.
Can you really not see how confusing these reports are? Have you used these reports in practice or only in theory?
Edward
13 Posted by zeke on 18 Apr, 2011 11:13 PM
Tom
Thanks for the response, but I don't know what question you are attempting to answer. My post was really a comment, not a question. I know what moneydance does when I record my transactions, I just think it handles the transactions in a way that is not particularly useful. I agree w/ most of the comments by Edward. As an example, if I take $100 from my checking account and use it to purchase 20 shares of mutual fund X, I want to be able to print out a report showing what I've done. The way moneydance handles transactions, I simply can't do it. Basically I can see half of my transaction at a time. As another example, if I want to print out a report totaling the amount of money I've invested in a particular security over some time period, I can't do it. These are pretty basic things, and as far as I can tell, I can't do them because of the artificial way that moneydance splits all my transactions into transfers in and out of my investment account cash balance, which in reality doesn't even exist in my real-world account.
Support Staff 14 Posted by Angie Rauscher on 27 May, 2011 06:24 PM
Hi all,
Sorry for the long silence on this issue, but I did way to let you know about some great new reports in Moneydance 2011, included Transfer and Detailed Transfer reports, Investment performance report, and the Investment Transactions report. I believe much of the functionality which you were missing before is included in these reports, and if not do let me know and we'll add them to the drawing board for future versions of Moneydance. Thank for using Moneydance, and please let me know if I can be of further assistance,
Angie Rauscher
Moneydance Support
15 Posted by zeke on 27 May, 2011 10:21 PM
Angie
Thanks for the response. I've been using the daily builds of 2011 for quite some time. What my issue comes down to is that MD handles securities, specifically mutual funds in my case, in a way that I consider flawed. There have been a few threads relating to this subject. Basically I think moneydance is designed around cash accounts and securities are sort of tacked on to the investment cash account. In my case an investment account w/ a cash balance is non-existent, and I only create one because that's the only way I can deal w/ my mutual funds in MD. All my mutual funds are individual no-load funds that I buy directly from the fund company w/ transfers from my bank. As an example, one side effect of the way moneydance handles securities is that all my transactions show up in reports w/ 0.00 amounts. So I can never get a report that shows transactions w/ the amount of the purchase and the shares. In my opinion securities should be handled similarly to GnuCash, which contains stock, bond, and mutual fund asset accounts, with the share being the immutable unit of ownership, so for example registers show number of owned shares as the "balance", instead of cash, which is always $0.00 in my case. There have been some other threads discussing the difficulties in reconciling securities because of the way MD handles them.
16 Posted by paleolith on 28 May, 2011 02:58 AM
Angie,
I appreciate your posting here. However, I don't think that any of the reports you cite address the issues under discussion here.
Please read the entire thread, carefully, as I've already responded, especially in post 12, and I don't want to start repeating. Also, both zeke and I have mentioned using MD2011 in past posts.
Or answer this: which of the reports you cited relates to the problem of investment transactions showing a total amount of zero?
And please try out all these reports ON INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS, accounts which have at least dozens of transactions over a couple of years. I think that you will then understand much better why I see your citing these reports as being unresponsive to the concerns being expressed here.
Try the Transfers reports. I have tried various combinations of parameters and cannot get a useful report on investments. The problem, as zeke has explained repeatedly, is that one side of a transaction is always the investment account, rather than the actual source or destination of funds.
Try the Investment Transactions report. Why are most of the "amount" entries zero, when they obviously were not zero?
Try the Transactions report. Select an investment account. Every transaction is shown twice, once positive and once negative, and the total is zero. Although in theory one could go through this report by hand, matching amounts, to figure out the real transactions, what good is that?
Or in the same report, select a security -- just one, since this report only allows selecting one account or all, but try it. For every transaction, the "category" is the investment account. What good is that?
This is not an isolated problem, nor just a reporting problem. It relates to the problems with the treatment of balances in investment accounts, which is under discussion in another thread, "balances in investment accounts, and reconciling". In that thread, Tom said that he is "putting in a suggestion ticket for better share reconciliation utility". I think that's an appropriate response. I'd like to see a similar response in this thread, along with a recognition that the problems are closely related and involve deeper issues of how MD handles investments, not just reports. I want to see a re-analysis of MD's investment handling. And I'm patient when I see the proper direction being take.
Edward
Support Staff 17 Posted by Tom Freeman on 08 Jun, 2011 07:15 PM
I think I now understand the issue.
The investment report keeps cash as a balance on hand. Since the buyxfr action did not affect this total, the transaction amount is listed as zero on the investment transaction report. On all other reports the cost of the transaction is listed.
I am sending this to the lead developer. asking why he chose to have it record this way.
The buyxfer is a convenience action. In reality the action that occurred, is that the check is a deposit of cash into your investment account and the investment account takes that cash and buys shares of the fund at the current market price. It is not really one transaction but two. The best current workaround would be to record the transactions as such it would and it show on the reports in the manner you wish.
I recognize this is non-optimal, and I'll ask the developer to take a closer look at this.
Tom
18 Posted by paleolith on 08 Jun, 2011 08:14 PM
Thanks, Tom.
I don't know how mutual funds actually record these txns, or how they work legally. I can see why that's a good model for MD to use, however the funds handle them. The issue is reporting. My statements show the txns in a useful form. For example, one statement from last year has a major heading "Short-Term Bond Index Inv"; under that one line is
05/28 Buy electronic bank transfer $xxxx.00 10.53 xxx.668 xxxx.851
(where the figures are Amount, Share Price, Shares Transacted, and Total Shares Owned). This is useful. Showing the Amount as zero is Not Useful. ;-)
So what we are asking for (I think I speak for Zeke as well as myself) is useful reports, not any particular internal model. And looking at statements from mutual funds ... well from SOME mutual funds ... is a good place to start. Some are good, some are obfuscatory, so you do have to bend a critical eye on them.
Edward
19 Posted by zeke on 09 Jun, 2011 12:45 PM
I think this discussion is getting to be pretty useless. I HAVE NO INVESTMENT ACCOUNT IN REAL LIFE. I NEVER SEE A CASH BALANCE BECAUSE THERE ISN"T ONE. MY STATEMENTS SHOW TRANSACTIONS FROM ONE ASSET (CASH IN MY BANK ACCOUNT) TO ANOTHER ASSET (SHARES IN THE FUND). MY STATEMENTS FROM THE FUND COMPANIES SHOW A SHARE BALANCE AND NOTHING ELSE. I suppose at some point there is cash deposited somewhere. The envelope gets carried from the mail room and opened, someone scans in the check or keys it into a computer, someone records the share purchase on a computer, the electrons carry the data over the wire and get transfered to yet another computer. I never see these things and don't expect to see them in moneydance. As I said, in my opinion moneydance appears to handle cash assets well, it does not handle security assets very well. There are numerous side effects to the kludged way it handles them. I won't go over them again. Thanks anyway.
Support Staff 20 Posted by Tom Freeman on 10 Jun, 2011 05:54 PM
There was a previous thread on share balance utility and a suggestion ticket was made. I've attached that suggestion ticket to this thread as well as a new one directly related to the zero transaction amount for buy transfers.
Below is the synopsis of the previous ticket posted. Let me now if it does not fit with the issues you have raised.
Tom
The main issue which is requested in this thread is better investment reconciliation. Currently when reconciling investment transactions there is no way to confirm share balances and a few users are feeling this is an oversight. see the thread for more detail.
21 Posted by zeke on 11 Jun, 2011 12:21 AM
OK, I've calmed down a bit from my earlier rant. I'll try to explain myself as clearly as I can:
I own assets in the form of shares of securities, specifically mutual funds. I purchase these assets by simple transfers from one asset (cash in a bank account) to another (shares in a fund). The transactions on my fund account statements reflect this - They show amount transfered from the bank on one side of the transaction and number of shares purchased on the other side. Likewise, the fund account statements show the number of shares I own as the current balance - that's all. I don't have an "investment account". However, in moneydance I have to create a fictitious investment account because moneydance does not treat my holdings as assets on the same level as cash assets. I can only see them indirectly thru the fictitious investment account. Therefore, in moneydance, all my simple asset-to-asset transactions are transformed into fictitious split transactions, with money going from my bank to my fictitious investment account, and from my fictitious investment account to holdings in my security. This way of handling my security assets has a number of side effects, including:
My fictitous investment account balance is always $0 (i.e. it is useless and irrelevant). Furthermore, as mentioned, it isn't easy to reconcile securities because there is no asset account register that displays my holdings - if there was, it would be very simple to look at my fund account register balance and find out if and when the share balance deviates from the statements I receive from the fund company.
All my transactions show up with $0 amounts in reports, or they show up with half of the fictitious split transactions.
Every scheduled transaction shows up with $0 amount.
When I download my bank transactions, every nearby investment transaction shows up as a possible match to the downloaded transactions, because they all have $0 amounts and moneydance can't distinguish them. Since I make a number of automated transactions at about the same time, this is a very significant source of errors.
In income and expense reports, security purchases actually appear as expenses. This doesn't really affect me, but it seems pretty odd.
The issues aren't really about whether a particular report is useful or not. Basically moneydance does not treat securities as assets in the same sense as cash assets. As I mentioned earlier, GnuCash has an excellent structure for handling security assets. If it didnt have other drawbacks I would switch to Gnucash because of it. I've also founda and reported several inaccuracies in reports related to investments in moneydance. I can't help but wonder if these are related to the - in my opinion - awkward way that moneydance handles security assets
22 Posted by paleolith on 11 Jun, 2011 05:45 PM
Tom,
No need to refrain from pointing out that I wrote what you quoted. However, note that there is a proper way to quote to make it easy to read. Since your users are going to the Markdown web site to figure out how to use this somewhat unusual markup, I think you should too. Only takes a few minutes.
That other thread dealt with reconciliation in investment accounts. This thread has dealt mainly with reports involving investment accounts. So these do "fit" in the sense of being complementary. One does not include the other. Both are subsets of the larger problem of the handling of investments, which is clunky at best and outright incorrect at times.
Zeke has pointed out some other places, in addition to reconciliation and reports, where this clunkiness is evident. These include matching downloaded transactions and the handling of scheduled txns. These don't apply to me, but obviously they are a major problem for others.
I make two main points regarding MD's handling of investment accounts:
We've talked a lot about how useless many of the reports are due to zero txn amounts, and Zeke has pointed out particularly how dangerous the confusion can be when matching downloaded txns. But perhaps even more importantly, the txns shown in MD do not match txns on reports from the investment company. My statements from Vanguard do not show (for example) my "buy" txns with zero amounts! So however MD wants to handle the txns internally, they need to be presented to the user -- universally -- as the investment companies present them. Though I have the most experience with Vanguard, I have examined statements from at least half a dozen other companies. Some statements are much better than others, but a buy is always a buy, never a zero-sum txn.
I disagree with Zeke when he says that investment accounts and cash balances are fictional. In fact my investment accounts are very real; AFAIK a normal individual cannot buy and sell securities except via an investment account. Even if you use eTrade, you have to set up an account to buy, sell, and hold securities. Also the cash balance is very real, even though it's usually zero. I don't think anyplace offering investment accounts will fail to have a cash account associated with the investment accounts. Even if you never intend to put money in the cash account, even briefly, there are too many things that can go wrong and end up with cash and they have to put it somewhere: the transfer to your bank fails or is delayed, your money is drawn and trading is suspended on the security before your purchase is made, you receive a dividend and your instructions for using it are out of date.
In many cases you could set up a separate investment account for each security, but that would involve horrendous amounts of paperwork. And in some cases you cannot: one of my investment accounts is a beneficiary IRA, which is a category with severe restrictions, and I'm pretty sure I could not split it. This also points out that investment accounts are used for grouping: I have a SEP-IRA, that beneficiary IRA, and a regular investment account. I can exchange securities within each account but I cannot mix them. I can buy using outside funds in the regular account, or in the SEP-IRA with annual limits, and not at all in the beneficiary IRA. Needless to say, any cash in these accounts also must not be mingled.
BUT -- when I get my statement and need to reconcile it, the txns are separated by security. The list for each security shows buys, sells, dividends, etc, and the amounts shown are all the amounts which are useful to me. The statement has a separate section for the cash balance, and this section usually has no txns, even when there were many buys, sells, dividends reinvested, etc. MD seems to think that my investment statement has only a single section, for the cash balance, and that all the txns have an amount of zero.
So although I disagree with Zeke on the reality of investment accounts and cash balances, I agree with him entirely on the practicality. An investment account is not equivalent to its cash balance, and I do not want for MD ever to pretend to me that there has been a txn in the cash balance if it did not affect the cash balance amount.
Edward
23 Posted by zeke on 11 Jun, 2011 10:26 PM
Edward
Thanks for your comments. RE investment accounts and cash balances in them, I am aware that there exist such things as investment accounts that have cash balances so they're not all "fictitious". I would guess, as you said, that purchases of individual stocks and bonds are generally or always handled thru that type of account. I was referring to my case specifically. I have holdings in quite a few mutual funds from different fund companies, and shares of each fund are purchased directly from the fund company with money from my bank accounts (and sold the same way). I deal w/ some of the largest funds in the business, and as far as I know there is no way to purchase these funds other than directly (except for perhaps in a retirement account). In no case do my accounts with mutual fund companies resemble an investment account like the one in moneydance. They simply represent my ownership in the funds.
Support Staff 24 Posted by Tom Freeman on 20 Jun, 2011 03:35 PM
Sorry for the late response.
I have talked to the lead developer. He agrees that the zero amounts listed for the transaction when using buyxfer and divreinvest is an issue. Ticket 3605 relates to that.
I believe the developers were attempting to simplify the registers by having them all mirror each other, this is part of the issue. As well, as Edward points out, there is a congruency in programing the investment accounts running through their cash balnces and having functions that bypass this.
When discussing this the developer acknowledged that the investment reports where in need of some work. I hope we can report on some improvements soon.
Tom
25 Posted by zeke on 21 Jun, 2011 01:41 AM
Hi Tom
Thanks again for the attention to this subject. Making registers all consistent is alright as far as it goes, but consistency has its limits. If you squeeze the balloon in one place it bulges out somewhere else. If that obscure metaphor isn't clear, I'll say if you try too hard to simplify in one area, sometimes it makes things more complicated somewhere else. That kind of looks like the case here in my opinion. I'm not sure what you mean by your statement about "congruency in programming...", but I'll say I do see some benefit in the approach moneydance takes to investment accounts and security assets, especially if one is actively trading many stocks. In my case that's not true, I have a pretty stable set of mutual funds, and I have basically a buy-and-hold long-term outlook. I have to wonder how many customers and potential customers are active high-volume stock traders. It's been awhile since I've used Quicken, but I recall it has a mutual fund account like the one I'd like to see, and as I said, so does GnuCash. GnuCash also has a nice way to group together accounts under a parent account, which could serve quite nicely as the analogy to moneydance's investment account. Anyway, I'm not about to switch from moneydance, but I certainly think it could be better.
By the way, I noticed that the issue w/ merging downloaded transactions seems to have been fixed in the 791 build I have running at the moment.
Anyway, I feel that my opinion has been heard and understood, so as far as I'm concerned, there's no further discussion needed on this subject.
26 Posted by paleolith on 21 Jun, 2011 02:48 AM
Just a quick note to say I'm with Zeke on this. For me, the real issue is for the developers to take a hard, critical look at how investment accounts do and do not meet users' needs, even more than the specifics we've been discussing.
As for Zeke's comment about actively trading many stocks, I speculate (but do not know) that such people use far more specialized software to track their holdings and transactions, and that there's no point in MD trying to meet their needs. As I say though, that's speculation.
Edward