On Tue, 06 May 2008 13:01:26 -0500, Cal Learner-- MVP wrote:

- quote -

Sort of ...

I have an account that only has 3 money market funds in it.
Investment Details for the three MM:

MM1 -- Investment Type: MM (has historical transactions)

MM2 -- Investment Type: MM

MM3 -- Investment Type: Mutual Fund; it does not give me the option of
selecting MM (this is the core fund used for settlement). It is definitely
a MM - even has that in the stock name. It has historical transactions.

I have another account that has a MM and two stocks. The investment type
for that MM (core fund) is also Mutual Fund and I have no option to change
it to MM. It too has historical transactions. (The 4 money market holding
are different in the 2 accounts).

Both MM holdings whose Investment Type is listed as Mutual Fund are
tax-exempt.

What think thee?

Thanks

Mike

In microsoft.public.money, MikeV06 wrote:

- quote -

That is what "archiving" would be about, and I agree that it is not
worth the hassle. When "archiving" deletes transactions, it adjusts
the starting balance. A single compensating transaction in the
register would be better IMO. However not deleting the transactions
and therefore not needing to have compensation for the balance, is
even better.

In microsoft.public.money, MikeV06 wrote:

- quote -

It affects the filling out of your schedule D too.

- quote -

Reexamine the evidence, and I think you will change your mind.

On Mon, 05 May 2008 12:23:23 -0500, Cal Learner-- MVP wrote:

- quote -

I had thought about that. However, I am concerned that if I start deleting
transactions that I will miss deleting the offsetting transaction and end
up with my accounts being unbalanced. I think I have come to that
conclusion many times over the past decade and just decided it was not
worth the hassle to get rid of them.

Thanks for the comments.

Mike

On Mon, 5 May 2008 09:56:36 -0700, Mark wrote:

- quote -

I got my definitions from those descriptions, but thank you for pointing
them out.

I changed all the costs to Actual and did not see any difference. I suspect
that setting impacts tax reports (which I do not use) rather than
performance screens/reports.

I have run into something I did not notice before. Evidently Money will
allow only one money market investment type in an account. It forces the
others to be mutual funds. That seems unusual.

Thanks

Mike

In microsoft.public.money, MikeV06 wrote:

- quote -

One more comment. While no *easy* way exists, an easier way would be
to look at the InvestmentActivities screen for your MMF and do your
deletions in the specific investment from there. I understand it is
not what you are looking for; it's the easiest available.

In microsoft.public.money, MikeV06 wrote:

- quote -

Correct.

A couple of notes:

1. The columns in the Portfolio have descriptions that may help understand
the calculations (customize the view and examine the Portfolio Columns tab)
2. For mutual funds, cost is based upon the selection made for that
investment (Actual, Single category or Double category). See the "Investment
Details". This selection can affect the calculations Money makes. For stocks
it defaults to FIFO but you can do it by Lots.

-Mark


"MikeV06" <me[at]mycomputer06.invalid> wrote in message
news:1q464wctqjp2u.dlg[at]mycomputer06.invalid...
- quote -

On Sun, 04 May 2008 12:27:10 -0500, Cal Learner-- MVP wrote:

- quote -

I have transaction going back to 1998 in some open holdings (especially the
core account funds). I have often thought about going through the old ones
and deleting them, but it just has not seemed worth the effort. This is
especially true since one cannot select several transactions (shift select)
for deletion and must do them one at a time. I assume no easy way exists?

Thank you for your help.

Mike

On Sun, 4 May 2008 10:25:31 -0700, L Cramer wrote:

- quote -

When I compare the amounts reported for Return for Period, Gain, and Price
Appreciation against the Fidelity report I get the results (x means a match
with Fidelity) shown in the table. The cost basis in Money is the same for
the portfolio manager screen and the report. However, these two only match
costs for holdings 4, 7, 9, 10 & 11. These holdings had no dividends since
purchase; hence, the costs would be expected to be the same (Fidelity does
not include reinvested dividends in their cost calculation).

Rtrn for Price
Hold Period Gain Apprec
1 x x
2 x x
3 x x
4 x x x
5 x
6 x x
7 x x x
8 x x
9 x x x
10 x x
11 x x x

The 4, 7, 9, & 11 holdings are identical for all. These holdings have a
single buy with no dividends.

The 1, 2, 3, 6, & 8 holdings match Fidelity for Return for Period and Gain.
These holdings have a single buy with a single dividend (all in 2008).

The 5 holding matches Fidelity only (no match on Return for Period or
Gain). This holding has historical transactions for buys and sells from
2006 and back. In 2008 it had a single buy with a single dividend.

The 10 holding matches Fidelity and Price Appreciation. This holding had
buys and dividends in 2007 with sale of all holdings in Feb 2008. It then
has a buy in April 2008 with no dividends. The report period for the Return
for Period starts in April 2008; hence, the Feb 2008 transactions are not
included in its window.

Money Cost Basis = orig. cost + dividends

Price Appreciation = Market Value - Cost Basis
= Market Value - orig. cost - dividends

Gain = Market Value - Cost Basis + Dividends
= Market Value - orig. cost - dividends + Dividends
= Market Value - orig. cost

Market Value = (orig. shares + dividend shares) * current price

When dividends = 0, the analysis is trivial.

When dividends > 0, the Return for Period and Gain match for all holdings
except 5 and 10. These two holdings have historical transactions. If I
factor out the historical dividends for holding 5, then the Return for
Period matches Gain. Holding 10 would take to long to do the analysis.

Bottom line, Return for Period and Gain are calculated the same except for
historical transactions. When one says that Return for Period/Gain includes
Dividends, one would have to conclude that it includes the added shares to
calculate market value reduced by the cost of the original shares, but not
the dividend shares. The beauty of Return for Period over Gain is that it
allows one to factor out the historical transactions.

I guess Return for Period gives one a measure of out-of-pocket gain/loss
for the selected period.

In microsoft.public.money, MikeV06 wrote:

- quote -

I don't think there would be an impact other than using one slot in
the Investment Transactions register instead of two and two vs zero
slots in the Cash Transactions register. Other than that, I think
they are equivalent. I don't know if that would make the file
infinitesimally larger or smaller. Initially I would not be
surprised if it became a tad larger, but that may or may not be more
than gained back when Money does its occasional automatic
compression of the database.

- quote -

It is probable that the quote history takes the most space in your
file. Any shrinkage due to removal of transaction history is
minimal and not worth the lack of information that you might want to
use to generate reports some day. The archive function can be useful
to those who want to remove tho old transactions out of a sense of
neatness.

Actually during an archive, Money Plus does clean some things up
such as getting rid of old payees. Much of the benefit of that could
be gained by specifying a date earlier than your earliest
transaction (maybe 1/1/1950), so that no transactions are removed.

- quote -

the cost column includes reinvested dividends.<<

The Return for Period number includes dividends. At least it does for the
two versions of Money I've used, MoneyPlus Dlx and M2004 Premium.



"MikeV06" <me[at]mycomputer06.invalid> wrote in message
news:11wcuedne39f5$.dlg[at]mycomputer06.invalid...
- quote -

On Sat, 03 May 2008 17:38:41 -0500, Cal Learner-- MVP wrote:

- quote -

What started this for me was a curiosity as to why the Money information
did not match the performance report that I see on Fidelity.

The Fidelity report tracks reinvestments as having no cost (* Reinvestment:
Note that reinvestments of dividends and capital gains are tracked as
having $0.00 cost). It then gives a Change Since Purchase which is the
Market Value of All Shares (including those from the reinvestment) less the
Cost (with reinvestments having a cost of $0.00). It does not include
shares that have been bought and sold in the past.

I now see that Money and Fidelity differ since Money's Cost includes
reinvestments. Consequently, it is impossible to configure the Portfolio
Manager's View to reflect consistently the same values that I see on
Fidelity. Sometimes Gain will match, sometimes Price Appreciation will
match, and sometimes neither will match depending on the historical
activity.

I have been able to configure a Performance by Investment Account report to
give me the same report (notwithstanding the difference in cost
definitions) by adjusting the reporting date and dropping the core account
from the analysis. The Return for Period gives me the same numbers. That
must mean it is calculating the return without the dividends even though
the cost column includes reinvested dividends.

Another issue is how Fidelity downloads reinvested dividends. They are
downloaded as Dividends and Buys (with a REINVESTMENT memo) rather than as
Reinvested Dividends. I guess I could manually change the Dividend to be a
Reinvested Dividend (rather than going to Cash) and delete the Buy.
However, since I am able to create a report giving me the same information,
it may not be worth the effort. Also, I am not sure what impact that would
have on other reports/screens within Money.


- quote -

Interesting... I would thought it would reduced the size by the amount of
the archived transactions.

Thanks

Mike

On Sat, 3 May 2008 15:53:54 -0700, L Cramer wrote:

- quote -

Must have been getting esp from you ... have been working with the reports
for just that purpose.

Thanks for the idea.

Mike

If you use Investment Performance in the Reports section, you can get
accurate reporting of returns by a date range.


"MikeV06" <me[at]mycomputer06.invalid> wrote in message
news:1t61mgajezpdg$.dlg[at]mycomputer06.invalid...
- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, MikeV06 wrote:

- quote -

A ReinvestDividend is equivalent to a Dividend and a Buy. If you
don't want to buy more you could stop reinvesting dividends.

Don't think I don't understand you. I do, but I find the way that
Money does it to be logical. Money does not have a column that does
not consider a reinvested dividend to include a buy.

- quote -

See if changing ChangePortfolioView-> ShowClosedPositions is useful
to you.

- quote -

The Gain and various Total Return columns make the best sense to me
if I am trying to understand the performance of an investment. The
PriceAppreciation column is useful in understanding where I will be
able to take capital gains or losses if the account is not a
tax-deferred account.

- quote -

I can only suggest that you consider some more about the value of
dividends. They are actual money that you can use to buy more of the
same investment (reinvest) or use for other purposes.

- quote -

No. You can hide closed positions in the Portfolio tho.

Regarding archiving of non-investment transactions, people who do
that thinking it is going to make the file significantly smaller or
faster are generally disappointed.

On Fri, 02 May 2008 10:06:48 -0500, Cal Learner-- MVP wrote:

- quote -

That is definitely better. However, something is still not quite correct
for purchases, I think?

Stock purchased on 4/21/08 for $100. Dividend on 4/30/08 for $1 which was
reinvested (*only* transactions for this fund).

These items appear to be correct:

Quantity shows total of shares purchased on 4/21/08 and 4/30/08.
Market Value is Quantity * last price (assume a value of $90).
Income = $1.
Cost Basis ($100 + $1) = $101.
Gain shows ($90 - $101 + $1) = -$10
Price Appreciation shows ($90 - $101) = -$11

However, the following one is confusing. It does not appear to be correct
since Purchases should exclude reinvested income (at least according to the
column description). Only two transaction exist for this fund.

Purchases = $101.

Of course, Purchases does not really do anything for me since it shows the
total purchases, even for shares already sold. It would appear the
description for the column is incorrect and that it is the cost of all
shares purchased (even those sold).

Price Appreciation makes more sense for me. It gives me a measure of the
appreciation of the original shares + the appreciation of the reinvested
shares.

BTW, does anyway exist to archive old investment transactions?

Thanks.

Mike

In microsoft.public.money, MikeV06 wrote:

- quote -

To adjust the portfolio view columns,
ChangePortfolioView-> CustomizeCurrentView-> PortfolioColumns

To do what you say you want to do, if my guess is correct, get rid
of the Gain column and replace it with the PriceAppreciation column.

(In the later years of the old millennium there were many more
people who did not consider dividends to be real money.)

- quote -

Same answer.


- quote -

Money Plus Ver 17

I have been trying to find a way to get my investment page to report Gain
based on a date range. For example, I have a stock which shows a cost basis
of say $100 and a market value of $120, but shows the gain as $1,000. I had
owned and sold all shares of this fund in February. I would really like to
see the gain as $20 rather than the $1,000. Best I can tell no way exists
to make such an adjustment in the portfolio views?

Additionally, I would like my money market fund used for the cash fund to
show $0 (no) gain since the cost and market values are equal rather than
showing a historical gain.

Thanks

Mike