There are some potential problems if you work with a file that was converted
into the pre-1105 version:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;889246
So, as the article states, it may be worthwhile to find the copy of the
pre-converted file (e.g. *.m12 for Money 2004) and reconvert it.

-Mark
"Elizabeth" <Elizabeth[at]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:669480EE-7208-4D02-9C7C-74E382D6025B[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

On the fourth try I finally was successful in downloading and installing the
upgrade. I needed to use the "new user" in XP method you recommended. I'm
in the process now of evaluating the figures to see if everything is correct.
Unfortunately, the "unrealized gains" problem remains. Still working on
that one. Thanks for your help in getting the download accomplished.

"Cal Learner-- MVP" wrote:

- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, Elizabeth wrote:

- quote -

I am using 14.0.125.1105.

To get the update, in IE6, I would start with
Tools-> Options-> Security-> LocalIntranet-> DefaultLevel which may be
sufficient.

If that does not let you updated, and if you are using XP, I would
try creating a new user with Administrator privilege. Switch to
that user and start Money with a new blank file. Let Money
download the updates as that user.

The theory is that if the problem is an IE6 setting, you will get
default settings for the new user. If you succeed this way, it
would accomplish the download, and it would point toward the reason
the other did not work. You can delete the new user later, and
your regular IE6 settings will not have been changed.

My experiments were not exhaustive. I may still have an anomaly if I
study it further, but it is not so serious a symptom as some.

Getting that updated is significant, and if it does not help that
aspect for you, it may help others.

You understand the problem, and I understand your response, but it didn't
work for me. My version is 14.0.125.724 (have been unable to download the
update). What version are you using to make the figures work? I appreciate
all your time and effort to help.

"Cal Learner-- MVP" wrote:

- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, Cal Learner-- MVP wrote:

- quote -

Working with this a bit more, I find that when I select an AsOF date
and then select UpdatePrices-> UpdatePricesNow, the numbers start
behaving.

In microsoft.public.money, Elizabeth wrote:

- quote -

Trying to duplicate this, I see portfolio column "Price
Appreciation" which I think is what you would be using for
unrealized gain.

CB stands for cost basis, I assume. I do not see a doubling of the
cost basis. That is to say, the basis for ABT+HSP matches the
original test Buy of ABT that I entered.

I think you are saying that the numbers are fine when you let the
date be today's date, but when you set the AsOf date back to earlier
times, you get bad basis and Price Appreciation numbers. I agree
that those number are not right when you set the date back.

- quote -

I don't think so. See if I can explain. I'll use as an example a stock I've
loaded. I'm getting results I don't understand in "Portfolio Value by
Investment Account" report.

(a) Effective Apr 30, 2004 spin-off of ABT (CB=0.9377891) and HSP
(CB=0.0622109), 1 shr HSP for every 10 ABT. Price ABT Apr 29 $44.40; Apr 30
$44.02. So I "Record a special activity" > "Record a spin-off" > etc.
(b) Check new CB using "Investment Transactions Report." Set-up: Account(#)
- quote -

(c) "Portfolio Value by Investment Account" report (ABT) for Apr 30 all
columns appear to contain logical results. Still look'n good.
(d) Portfolio Value by Investment Account" report (ABT) for Apr 29 Quantity,
Latest Price, and Value columns appear to also contain logical results. Ah,
almost there, but wait... Unrealized Gains and Cost Basis each appear
excessive by a factor of two (double); Average Cost per Share is deficient by
a factor of two (one half). The double and one half structure persists in
the same three columns backwards for all "Portfolio Value by Investment
Account" reports to original ABT purchase date.

This I don't understand.

Thanks

"Cal Learner-- MVP" wrote:

- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, Elizabeth wrote:

- quote -


I can imagine. If you are comparing the values before and after that
spinoff, but the price quote of the parent did not drop a lot over
that interval, the value would stay the same. You have reduced the
basis a lot by transferring basis to the spinoff. So the
unrealizedGain(=value-basis) would have increased.

In reality, the price probably dropped significantly when the parent
went ex-dividend, but your entering of the spinoff info probably did
not match that timing exactly.

Would that explain it?

re M2005 premium: when recording a spin-off, need help understanding how or
why all prior parent company unrealized gain values double.