Best practice for uncashed cheques?

[Kash]

Everybody-

You're making this way too complicated. Try entering checks as invoices 
and keeping track of them with the payable aging report. Really, it's 
what they're designed for.

On 10/28/2012 9:47 AM, Tom C Keene wrote:
> I use a spreadsheet to reconcile my checking account to my on-line bank activity on a daily basis.  All the outstanding checks show up on the spreadsheet and will remain there until they clear the bank.
>
> Tom
>
> On Oct 27, 2012, at 10:41 AM, Marc Sherman wrote:
>
>> How do folks handle cheques they wrote a while ago but which remain uncashed for a while?
>>
>> Up until now I've been leaving them in the register with the original date written on the cheque, but I'm having increasing trouble figuring out where the missing money is when I go to reconcile with downloaded transactions from the bank and my current balance doesn't match my cleared balance.
>>
>> I've been toying with the idea of moving the dates forward for these cheques to the next business day after I import/reconcile. That better reflects the current reality -- those cheques could be cashed any time in the future, so my current balance is correct and my future balance best predicts the worst case scenario. Also, the act of finding and advancing the cheques gives me a chance to chase down the person I wrote them to and, if needed, gently remind them to cash my cheque.
>>
>> But it's a pain to do this -- is there any way to automate it?
>>
>> - Marc
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>
>