[Patch] reworked advanced-portfolio.scm
Andrew Sackville-West
andrew at farwestbilliards.com
Sat Feb 18 20:42:21 EST 2006
On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 18:38:27 -0700
Mark Johnson <mrj001 at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:20:24 -0700
> >Mark Johnson <mrj001 at shaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> [...]
>
> >>True. What about the possibility of reports based upon the pricedb
> >>entries? Eg. a graph of the price history. Such entries would produce
> >>unwelcome blips. I'm just thinking here about possible future features,
> >>and, I suppose, the meaning of pricedb entries.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >In thinking on this more, as I understand the way the report currently
> >works, that shouldn't necessarily cause a blip. The report takes the
> >txn and converts it from whatever commodity it is currently represented
> >in to the final display commodity(currency). Frankly, I don't
> >understand the currency exchange function well enough yet to know, but
> >it may be that it correctly shows a conversion. so for example if you
> >have 10 units stockA @ $10 and trade it for 5 units stockB @ $20, then
> >the value should line up at $100 either way. What if your trade is not
> >1:1. hmmm. 10units A @ $10 becomes 7 units B @ $20. well your value
> >jumps from $100 to $140. but this is still accurate as that is what the
> >stock is worth. What am I missing here?
> >
> >
> >
> The bit that you are missing is that the conversion from one fund to
> another uses the cost basis rather than the market value as the dollar
> amounts. Suppose I bought the fund some years ago (true), and suppose
> it has gone up in value significantly since then (sadly not true). Now
> if the conversion from one fund to another at original cost places an
> entry in the pricedb, that entry will be the cost of the mutual fund,
> not the current market value. Since the cost and market value are now
> significantly different, this entry would produce a large, short,
> downward blip in a (hypothetical) graph of the prices in the pricedb.
>
> The point I am trying to make is that we should not automatically create
> entries in pricedb for transactions that do not reflect the current
> market value.
agreed. I do think, however that a pricedb entry for any actual buy or
sell is valid. Regardless, we're getting off track on the actual report
and its expected behavior. I think I'll put together a nice example
with expected results from the report and get some feedback on that.
thanks for working throuhg this with me. I appreciate it very much.
A
>
> Mark
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/attachments/20060218/54131f2e/attachment.bin
More information about the gnucash-devel
mailing list