How to set up hierarchy for accounts? What is better?

[Anthony Lupa]

I think it's hard to claim any particular hierarchy is "superior" to any
other.

Unless you are otherwise obligated (such as, by regulation), the hierarchy
should be derived from your reporting requirements.  That is, what you find
useful for the system to report should drive the account structure.

T

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 17:41:03 -0400, "John Layman"
<john.layman at laymanandlayman.com> wrote:
>>From a data modeling perspective, the institution is a superior concept
to
> the investment instrument type.  It is perfectly possible (and, indeed, I
> have such a case) where an account with Institution-X includes both a
> garden
> variety IRA (which just matured) and mutual fund holdings, with an
> associated cash account.  It would really be turning things upside down
to
> elevate the instrument above the institution.  To be perfectly clear,
> however, the highest concept here is not institution, per se, but the
> investment account -- the entity for which they send you a statement.
> That's why the suggested chart of accounts separates RETIREMENT from
SPOUSE
> RETIREMENT at the top level.  Both may have accounts at the same
> institution, but they are different accounts.  It isn't clear to me how
any
> practical or accounting value would derive from lumping all Plain Old
IRAs
> into the same bag.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnucash-user-bounces+john.layman=laymanandlayman.com at gnucash.org
> [mailto:gnucash-user-bounces+john.layman=laymanandlayman.com at gnucash.org]
> On
> Behalf Of FireFly
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 4:04 PM
> To: gnucash-user at gnucash.org; alfggmb
> Subject: Re: How to set up hierarchy for accounts? What is better?
> 
> Why do you need to put the "Bank Name" at the start of the tree? Is it
that
> important what accounts are in what banks (or rather totaling)?
> 
> Personally if you care about IRA's in a particular bank I'd keep original
> setup with a minor change
> 
> Investments:Retirement:IRA:[Bank Name]:Account X
> 
> - James Duerr
> 
> E-mail: FireFlys_98 at yahoo.com
> ---------------------
> Discover a lost art - play Marbles. May 2004 www.marillion.com
> 
> 
> --- On Thu, 3/17/11, alfggmb <alfggmb at verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> From: alfggmb <alfggmb at verizon.net>
>> Subject: How to set up hierarchy for accounts? What is better?
>> To: gnucash-user at gnucash.org
>> Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 8:00 PM Is it better to set up 
>> parent-child accounts for IRA investments as for e.g.
>> [Bank Name]:Investments:IRA:Account1,2 etc or leave it as in the 
>> original setup.. Investments:Retirement:IRA..
>> 
>> The problem is all the IRAs from everywhere(all banks and
>> others) would
>> appear under the same parent, namely Retirement.  It will not give a 
>> total for [Bank Name]:
>> 
>> Basically my question is, is there an easy way to find the totals for 
>> both (all accounts in [Bank Name] which includes the IRA in
>> Investments:etc) and
>> (all IRAs) ? 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Al
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> View this message in context: 
>> http://gnucash.1415818.n4.nabble.com/How-to-set-up-hierarchy-for-accou
>> nts-What-is-better-tp3386171p3386171.html
>> Sent from the GnuCash - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> gnucash-user mailing list
>> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
>> -----
>> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
>> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>> 
> 
> 
>       
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.