Am 28.10.2014 17:32, schrieb John Ralls:
On Oct 28, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Wm <wm+...@tarrcity.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:25:55 <2234422.7n09t1o...@legolas.kobaltwit.lan> Geert Janssens
<geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be>
On Thursday 09 October 2014 14:30:28 Alex Aycinena wrote:
Developers,
I am planning to add a feature to gnucash, primarily, but not
exclusively, related to currency accounting, and wanted to summarize
what I was thinking of. I would welcome feedback.
Since version 2.4.0, GnuCash supports trading accounts as described in
'Tutorial on multiple currency accounting' and 'Multiple currency
accounting in GnuCash' by P. Selinger (see
http://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Trading_Accounts). I believe Mike
Alexander added this feature.
In his tutorial, he (P. Selinger) mentions a 'reference currency
method' as an alternative to the use of trading accounts. This is
essentially the feature I wish to add.
Today, in file->properties->Accounts tab, you can turn "trading
accounts" on or off. I propose to change this to a selection of three
alternatives: use trading accounts, specify a 'book currency', or
neither trading accounts nor book currency. If trading accounts is
selected, it would work as implemented by Mike. If neither is
selected, it would work as gnucash does now without trading accounts
selected. So no one would be forced to use the new feature.
What benefit does the current situation (without trading accounts) have on its
own compared
to your new proposal ?
That is part of what puzzles me, why would anyone, first moment that they
encounter anything that isn't HomeCurrency or HomeUnit *not* turn on Trading
accounts. Shouldn't GnuCash be doing it *for* people when they
buy shares,
invest in a pension plan and
other ordinary life stuff or
even exchange some Euros for a family holiday just for the joy of currency or
a
teenager doing something on-line in a new-currency, etc (not my idea of fun
but it happens and should be recorded).
In other words should we really keep the old way or can it be modeled
in your new proposal as well by for example assuming a default currency ?
I'm wondering if the formalisation of a book-currency isn't seen by some as
governmental rather than natural accounting. I'm in URP flox
Or a related question: how hard would it be to migrate an existing
multi-currency book without
trading accounts to your proposal ?
That is something that interests me too. I am running a book (I don't like
that term, it sounds like gambling, but I'll use it) for a relative as well as
myself, we know how much we owe each other by common agreement. I think it
would be quite difficult without Trading accounts, coz GnuCash doesn't do
bunches of currency or shares naturally.
I've run a pretty sizable investment portfolio in GnuCash for many years with
no need for trading accounts.
Me too.
Trading accounts aren't really necessary for non-currency transactions because
the stock and fund account registers display amount, price, and value. Trading
accounts are most useful, though not required, for users who maintain accounts
in different currencies because currency accounts registers display only amount.
I largely agree. I live in Germany, so my currency is the Euro. Even if I buy
or sell
stock that trades in USD or an other currency, in the end there will be a debit
or credit
to my EUR bank account. There is an intermediate amount in USD, but frankly I
don't care
about that. What matters is the EUR amount, even for the tax declaration (I
track only
my private finances, it may be different for companies, I don't know).
If I travel abroad, I do most payments with a credit card. There as well I get
a final
amount in EUR. I don't care about the amount in foreign currency, again. If I
get
foreign cash, I note this as an expense (say I get 200 USD at an ATM, this will
be
recorded as Description: 200 USD, 156 EUR expense). I do not track the USD cash
any further, I am just to lazy to do that. These are usually only small amounts,
so I don't care.
My bank offers accounts in foreign currencies. There I would need trading
accounts,
but I never did this so far.
URP flox?
The way GnuCash does lots (the formal name for "bunches of currency or shares")
requires that one manually initiate it, which is a good thing because it doesn't work
very well. In my view the best feature of Alex's proposal is that he'll have to fix that
first.
Yes, if lot handling would be easier, this would be highly desirable.
Herbert.
Regards,
John Ralls
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
--
Herbert Thoma
Dipl.-Ing., MBA
Head of Video Group
Multimedia Applications Department
Fraunhofer IIS
Am Wolfsmantel 33, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
Phone: +49-9131-776-6130
Fax: +49-9131-776-6099
email: herbert.th...@iis.fraunhofer.de
www: http://www.iis.fraunhofer.de/
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
