But the "original versions of the moneycentral portfolio" did not have a
concept of payment to/from cash accounts.

This complicates matters: When you drag an investment from one account to
another where should those cash links go to? For those transactions linked
to accounts outside the investment (e.g. A Buy investment using funds from
your checking account), the links could be retained. But what about those
using the linked cash/contributions account? Should the All be relinked to
the cash/contributions account of the other investment account, should it
retain linkage to the old accounts, or should it simply be blanked and let
the user make the changes - each of these decisions can result in balance
problems on those accounts.

That's the first thing that came to mind about possible difficulties with
drag and drop.
But, I myself would also like to see this type of functionality returned,
but it would most likely have to require some form of dialogs that allow you
to choose how to handle the cash transfer for each transaction.
There may be other difficulties I haven't thought about either.

-Mark



"duhmel" <mqq6[at]cox.net> wrote in message
news:uFHAh.25349$NI1.5471[at]newsfe14.lga...
- quote -

Maybe we take up a collection and train the developers on the concept of
'drag and drop' which was in the original versions of Money Central
Portfolio.

"Frustrated Money User" <FrustratedMoneyUser[at]discussions.microsoft.comwrote in message news:B78891CB-8486-4061-88F7-6DCE4FCE72F4[at]microsoft.com...
- quote -

Dick and William,

You are right on the "transfer" function. Any suggestions on workaround to
avoid transfer? (Other than cut and paste all past transactions from one
investment account to the new one?)

On the other hand, MS seems to have taken consideration of"return of
capital" in calculating cost basis (which was not the case in 04, and I see
it now in 06, my latest upgrade.)

regards



"William R Wood" wrote:

- quote -

Yes indeed, I have often said that the Money developers should be forced to
use the product to manage their own money so they would directly suffer the
consequences of their own moronic programming decisions.

But on reflection, that probably would not work anyway. I now think that
the Money developers are too dumb to manage money if they even have any left
to manage.

Thankfully I stuck with Money 2002 which works correctly 98% of the time. I
have used 2002 so long that I now know all its quirks and have the interface
memorized so everything goes smoothly. The absolute worst thing that could
possibly happen in the future is that I might have to manually type in all
new transactions instead of downloading them from my banks and brokers. I
can live with that and meantime I avoid all the "Brittany Spears" behavior
in the newer versions.

I suggested years ago that we all boycott new versions of Money but you
guys/gals would not listen.

Regards,


Bill Wood



"Dick Watson" <littlegreengecko[at]mind-enufalready-spring.com> wrote in
message news:ePX7nD0SHHA.3316[at]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
- quote -

I'm sure others have reported this before, but now that I have the problem,
I'll complain too.

It's mind-numbing that Transfer Shares is supposed to exist to enable the
cost basis trail to follow a security transfer but all of the performance
reporting in Portfolio Manager ignores this trail and acts as though the
Transfer Shares are virgin birth new shares the day of the transfer.

Yet another example of how the people who design Money don't understand or
care how it is actually used and, for that matter, don't really use it
themselves sufficient to see the impact of these design decisions on
real-life use cases. Money. The Brittney Spears of software. A "pretty face"
on an utterly vacuous soul.