"Cal Learner-- MVP" <via_newsgroup[at]please.tnx> wrote in message
news:ug89n01tgk33np8rak0tq90m3t9c5pjd16[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

Finally, a reason to upgrade! ;-)

In microsoft.public.money, Paul Pedersen wrote:

- quote -

I did not reproduce that oddity when I tried it in Money 2005, but I
did reproduce it in Money 2004.

"Cal Learner-- MVP" <via_newsgroup[at]please.tnx> wrote in message
news:fhhtm01agib1dlad50b53p6kqeum8m73b8[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

Nope, this was entered as a Buy transaction. The cost basis displays
correctly in the Account Summary screen when I set the basis calculation to
Actual, but as blank (and treated as zero) when I use either of the
averaging methods.



- quote -

Thank you.

I had thought that the basis calculation type for a single security would be
the same regardless of whether it's in a taxable account. In any case, I
should be able to take care of it all by hand when the need arises.

In microsoft.public.money, Paul Pedersen wrote:

- quote -

I suspect this is due to AddShares being generated into the register
rather than actual Buy transactions. If you want accurate basis data
in the 401K, Money would need the actual Buy data.

The "wizard" takes a simplified action to save effort for something
that many people will not care about. For some, basis is something
they only care about for tax purposes. So for them it does not
matter. Others may want to be able to do analysis as to how the
various investments are doing. For them, entering Buys and Sells
makes sense.

- quote -

One good thing is it does not send investment sales in your 401k to
your tax program. It also keeps the basis of the various accounts
separately in the US, so that if you hold the same security in a
taxable account, that basis data should not be contaminated by the
AddShares in the 401K.

- quote -

Thank you both for your answers.

As far as "easier" is concerned, the reason this came up is because in the
Account Summary window, using the Average method, it showed cost basis as
zero, and the entire quantity of the fund as taxable gain. (I wish I had
gotten it for free, but that's not the way it happened.)


So (in case MS is listening),

1. Money should change the way it calculates basis in such a case.
2. It should treat 401k accounts differently than taxable accounts, rather
than treating any one fund the same regardless of which account it's in.

Thanks again.




"Cal Learner-- MVP" <via_newsgroup[at]please.tnx> wrote in message
news:qeoqm0lssc55hvh4ojtorot7rp15t7266u[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, Paul Pedersen wrote:

- quote -

Averaging is only for funds in the US. With stocks in taxable
account, there are always specific shares sold.

- quote -

No, as far as ease, because Money can do the calculations. If the
mutual fund company only calculates single basis and you are not
using Money, then single average would be easiest.

As far as not having to worry about the basis of securities in a
401K, Yes.

Given that cost basis is all about tax law, tax law drives the answer: all
that matters is any after-tax contributions you've made. Everything else is
taxable as income.

"Paul Pedersen" <no-reply[at]swen.com> wrote in message
news:uYxNdeTsEHA.2560[at]TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
- quote -

I think I understand the differences in the cost basis calculation types,
and why it would be advantageous in most cases to choose one of the
averaging calculations.

But what about in a 401k account? It seems that actual cost basis would be
simpler and since my "basis" is the amount I've put into the entire account,
I shouldn't have to consider the basis for individual funds.

Is that correct?