In microsoft.public.money, cndesu wrote:

- quote -

As I understand it, for Canadian use, Money averages all shares in a
given security held in any account in the file.

Does that answer your question?

Hi,
I also could not find the cost basis property check box. I have Money 2004
Canadian Version. I donot know by default by what property it is calculating
the cost?
--
Chanikya


"Birdie" wrote:

- quote -

This has not been my experience. I have one that's showing up in my
"Investment Performance" as a 0 cost basis, but when I go to the details, it
figures from an average cost basis (double category).

"RickBob" wrote:

- quote -

I had been using the Delux Portfolio with $CDN funds for 5+ years, but on
July 18/05 it started with an upgrade download and hasn't given me a correct
Average Price or Cost Basis since.
I tried going to Money 2006 and it also does currency connversion at sign on
& off resulting in a creeping rate translation error. I have to go to the
Basic stand alone Portfolio, correct all the entries and then its OK unless I
go back to Money 2006.
The exchange rate box on trades is new since July 18th also.
I can't understand why something so simple and fundamental isn't fixed yet.
This is a serious bug. Just look at the July 16th version of the code and you
should be able to pinpoint it. Or is this too simple a suggestion.

--
LB


"Wally" wrote:

- quote -

Canadian version does not show this.

"RickBob" wrote:

- quote -

I see this problem with stocks and mutual funds in performance reports. For
example, I have some shares in Microsoft. It is a one time purchase in a
single account. If I have the report set to subtotal by investment account,
it works fine. If I don't have any subtotals in the report, the cost basis
reverts to zero. It happens with both Canadian and American investments.
The same thing happens with some investments purchased in multiple accounts.
However, I have just discovered that all the investments that revert to zero
are entirely in tax-deferred registered retirement savings plans (RRSP's).
Although it still doesn't make any sense to me, at least there is a pattern.

"Cal Learner-- MVP" wrote:

- quote -

Update:

I did some more experimenting, and noticed the following. If you are in
the "Account Summary" view of an account, you can see which investments are
showing a n on-zero cost bases, and which are showing zero cost basis. I
right-click on those investments that showed a cost-basis that was not zero,
and on the Details page for all investments, there is a "Cost Basis" property
that can have 3 valuies: 1) Actual Cost Basis, 2) Average Cost Basis (Single
Category), and 3) Actual Costs Basis (Double Category). I noticed that all
my zero-cost-basis investments showed the Cost Basis Property of (2) -
Average Costs Basis (Single Category). By changing this propery on the
Investment's Details page to either "Actual Cost Basis", or "Average Costs
Basis (Double Category), then non-zero cost-basis values would appear in my
investments reports. I'm not sure what these 3 different cost-basis
properties are yet, but the setting of "Average Costs Basis (Single
Category)" appears to cause these zero cost-basis values.

Rick Bob.


"RickBob" wrote:

- quote -

Hi.

I also have this same problem, with Money 2003 Canadian Edition. It
happens with mutual funds for me. (It might happen with stocks well, but I
only have 1 stock account, and it does not occur there for me.) In my mutual
fund accounts, it happens both with funds that are only in one account, as
well as with funds that are in multiple accounts.

RickBob

"Cal Learner-- MVP" wrote:

- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, Wally wrote:

- quote -

If it is the same bug pushparaj described, it seems to only affect
funds and not stocks. Are your problem securities funds or stocks?

Note that the basis is reported correctly elsewhere than in that
monthly report. Is that the same place you see the problem?




- quote -

That does not explain why it can't calculate the basis for some stocks which
are only in one account, but it can calculate the basis for some stocks in
multiple accounts. Like I said before, I can't see any logical reason for
the zero values.

"Cal Learner-- MVP" wrote:

- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, pushparaj wrote:

- quote -

I reproduced this in the August monthly report in Money 2006. It
also showed the same $0.00 for the July report. Odd.

Configuring in the Cost Basis column into the Portfolio, it has the
correct basis.

The capital gains estimator shows the correct basis.

Steps to reproduce this error:

1. Create a new Money File.
2. Setup an dummy bank account with opening balance say 10K.
3. Set up an investment account say named CGM.
4. Add an investment with ticker CGMFX. Enter a buy transaction dated
03/04/2004. Get the price from MSN Money (Price was $31.74). Buy qty is
56.7109. Total amount is $1800 (transfer from the dummy bank account).
5. Goto Monthly reports for Aug 2005.
6. You will see something like this: CGM Focus is the best performing
investment in your current portfolio. It's up 12.67% from your weighted
average cost $0.00.

Pushparaj
"Cal Learner-- MVP" wrote:

- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, pushparaj wrote:

- quote -


What are the steps to reproduce in your US version of Money 2005?



- quote -

I use US version of Money Software. Actually it's easy to reproduce.

Pushparaj

"Cal Learner-- MVP" wrote:

- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, Wally wrote:

- quote -

From what I understand, Canadian versions of Money combine/average
the basis of a security across all accounts. This differs from the
US behavior of counting basis for each account separately.

This is an attempt to meet Canadian tax rules.

I have been wondering about this same problem. I have noticed in almost all
the Money Versions till 2005 (No idea whether this fixed in 2006).

I still don't understand why Money calculates the cost basis $0.0 and then
reports like this

CGM Focus Fund is the best-performing investment in your current portfolio.
It's up 6.19% from your weighted average cost $0.00.

Pushparaj

"Wally" wrote:

- quote -

In the investment reports all the versions of Money that I have owned over
the years have been unable to correctly calculate the cost basis for every
investment if the report is not subtotalled by account. There have always
been some investments for which the cost basis is zero. Often these
investments only exist in one account. Often a cost basis is calculated for
investments the exist in more than one account. I can see no logical reason
for why some cost bases are calculated while others are not. This is simple
spreadsheet stuff, not rocket science. I can't see why such a simple defect
has never been fixed. By the way, I use Canadian versions of Money currently
2006 version.