Mike? Are you using 2.0 or 2.2? -derek
Quoting Mike Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > --On November 30, 2007 8:14:54 AM -0800 Andrew Sackville-West > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think the thing to do is figure out which version of this report to >> use and get it cleaned up and committed as it currently stands. Then >> go back in and add the feature of another frickin' column. How many is >> too many? >> >> The current report is so broken, that I think we could get the devs to >> backport a fixed version into 2.2.x to help alleviate the current bug >> stack and then move with improvements to the report for 2.4 > > I decided to take a look at this a bit, although I don't have time to > really do too much right now. So far I've tried Andrew's but not > Morrison's. To get it to work I had to change "_" to "-" in > ACCT_TYPE_ASSET and ACCT_TYPE_LIABILITY around line 390 in case anyone > else is wondering why it doesn't work as sent. I also changed the > debugging calls to use "gnc:debug" instead of "output" to avoid getting > 15000 lines of debugging output every time I ran the report. > > There are still some problems with this report. For one thing it > doesn't seem to handle reinvested dividends quite right, although I > think you've been discussing this. I have a fund where I made one > purchase and since then there have been reinvested dividends and > reinvested capital gain distributions and no sales. It didn't handle > this too badly. The basis seems correct, but for some reason all the > dividends and distributed gains are considered to be realized gains. > In the case, at least, of the dividends this is not right. > > In the case of Apple, I've got a number of purchases and sales over > several years, along with a few stock splits. However the net result > is fairly simple. All the lots are closed except for the most recent > purchase and there have been no splits since then. It almost handles > this correctly except for some shares I donated to charities. For some > reason it considers the value of these shares to be brokerage fees. I > used the lot scrubber to create capital gains splits for all the sales > and donations and told the report to use them. The realized gain in > the report is the same as in the lot viewer. > > A more complicated example is Altria Group. I purchased two lots in > 2004 and 2005. In 2007 they spun off Kraft. There have been no other > transactions in that account. The net result is that the basis for > Altria is split between the Altria and Kraft stocks. Then the > resulting fractional shares of Kraft were sold. I used the lot > scrubber to create capital gains splits for this fractional sale. The > report doesn't handle this well at all. The basis of Altria is > unaffected by the spin off instead of being reduced. The basis of > Kraft is close, it's off by only $.74. I can't see any obvious place > this comes from. However it shows a realized gain for Kraft that is > way off. It's equal to all the money that has flowed in or out plus > $.74 so it's off by a factor of 1000 or so. > > I also have another stock (Johnson & Johnson) for which I have 3 > acquisitions, one partial sale, and several splits. It seems to have > had trouble with this one since it thinks the basis is zero, which is > clearly wrong. Again I used the lot scrubber to create a capital gains > split for the sale and the lot scrubber gets the correct gain. The > report shows a huge realized loss that is much larger than the sale > price, as if the basis for that lot was a large negative number. > > If there are lots assigned to the splits for a stock or other asset, > the report should use them. In this last case, the sale was part of > the second of three acquisitions. This is correctly recorded in the > splits (which I realize is hard to do now, but someday it might be > easier) and the report should really use this information to determine > the basis for the shares sold like the lot scrubber does. > > I've only looked at a few lines in the report so this isn't a complete > list of the possible problems. Sorry I don't have more time to work on > this right now. I appreciate the work you are doing on it. This > version seems to be better than before and I hope these comments help > improve it. I'm sure you would like to have test data that > demonstrates some of these problems. Perhaps I'll have time to create > some, but I can't promise it right now. > > -- > Mike Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ann Arbor, MI PGP key ID: BEA343A6 > > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-devel mailing list > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
