Maybe the last advanced portfolio update for now

[Ken Farley]

I'm using Gnucash 2.6.1 the latest version?
The reason I noticed this is because I installed the latest version of
the report, which is as referenced in the original post on this
thread.
Both securities have had only purchases applied to them.
I didn't run any date specific tests, since the thing that corrected
the report was to run it with LIFO or FIFO as the basis calculation
method. Given that it was okay for LIFO and FIFO but not for Average,
I didn't think it was anything specific to a particular transaction.
I'll try to look prior to any purchases of either or one of them and
see if things are correct then, once I'm at my home computer again.

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Mike Alexander <mta at umich.edu> wrote:
> --On February 20, 2014 7:02:43 PM -0800 farleykj <farleykj at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I do have an odd thing that happens, but wonder if it's something I
>> have set up wrong, etc. If I run the report with the default
>> settings, there are a couple of securities I've got that come up with
>> a zero cost basis. That shouldn't be, because I've been regularly
>> buying it shares of these funds via the company 401(k), etc.
>> If I change the basis cost calculation method from "Average" to
>> "FIFO" or "LIFO", the cost basis is calculated correctly. I don't
>> know why this only happens for these two securities and not others, I
>> can't find anything they have in common. Perhaps there is some odd
>> calculation done in the average situation only?
>
>
> What version of GnuCash are you using?  Have you installed a later version
> of the Advanced Portfolio report in this version of GnuCash? Are the other
> numbers correct for those two securities?  Are there any sales of these
> securities (or other transactions that would reduce the basis) or only
> purchases?  If you run the report for other dates, before some of the
> purchases, is the basis correct?  Can you find a date at which it becomes
> incorrect and see what transaction happens then?
>
>           Mike
>