On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 5:11 AM, David G. Hamblen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charles Day wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Christian Stimming <[EMAIL > PROTECTED]<mailto: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >> >> Am Montag, 7. Juli 2008 18:42 schrieb Charles Day: >> > > So it's not a question of absolute values in bookkeeping. It's >> > > a question of absolute values in computing share prices. Not >> > > the same thing. >> > >> > I agree with Derek. That is, the "weighted average" price source >> is not >> > intended to compute the cost of your holdings, but rather to >> compute the >> > volume-weighted average price of all buys AND sells. So it needs >> to keep >> > using the absolute value. However, it does need to be changed: >> it should >> > ignore exchanges with a zero "amount" in the split. >> > >> > So I think we need to add a new price source of "Cost" which >> computes >> > without absolute value and does include zero "amount" splits. >> >> Yes. The existing "weighted average" answers a different question >> that the one >> you are more interested in. >> >> > I do think a volume-weighted average price can be useful; it's >> just more >> > appropriate for measuring your personal trading performance. >> Maybe there >> > should be a performance report designed around that. >> >> Exactly, and it has been introduced precisely to measure personal >> trading >> performance. I recall I basically used this in the "price >> scatterplot", which >> is probably only about what you said. For the cost of your current >> holdings, >> I agree this is probably wrong. Feel free to move the old one to a >> different >> name or rename the new and the old. Maybe the old "weighted >> average" should >> even be available only in the price scatterplot and nowhere else. >> But simply >> replacing it is IMHO not the best way to go. >> >> >> I've added the new price source which I have called "Average Cost" (for >> now, at least). Committed as r17266. >> > > Now that r17292 enables me to test things, the "Average Cost" on the > balance sheet does what I think it should, except when a position is closed > out (as in Derek's initial example above). With no current holdings in a > stock, I get blanks for that stock and for the Total Assets, Liabilities, > etc., just $ signs. If I unselect "Compute Unrealized Gains...", then the > Liabilities and Equity section print properly, but the Assets total remains > blank. Looks like a total somewhere is being skipped if there's a funny > entry. I'll see what I can find. > "With no current holdings in a stock, I get blanks for that stock" Could you explain a bit more, because this sounds contradictory. If you have no current holdings of the stock, then why is there even a line for it on your report? -Charles > >> For now I have not removed the "Weighted Average" price source from any >> reports. I will have a look at that later on. >> >> -Charles >> >> >> Christian >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
