Ed Warnicke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1) I purchase 100 shares of AMD with 500 USD on Date1. This > creates a transaction consisting of two splits:
Yes, but let me correct your syntax.. In particular, the split that is attached to AMDAccount has an Amount of 100 (shared) and a Value or $500 (the value of the purchase): > Transaction (Date1) > Description Account Debit Credit > Split-> Stock Purchase CashAccount $500 > Split-> AMDAccount 100shrs, $500 > where the commodity for CashAccount is USD and the commodity for > AMDAccount is AMD. > In addition to posting this transaction, we also post a Lot Well, no.. The lot is not "posted" per se. It's just something that looks something like an account (in that it contains a bunch of splits). So, a corrected display would look like: > Lot ( AMDAccount ) > Amount(Shares) Value > Split-> 100 500 > > It strikes me that a lot would be associated with exactly one account > (AMDAccount in this example). Indeed, a lot is necessarily tied to one account, and a split may only be in one lot. > ( By the way, do we have a better word than LotEntry for this? ). A > LotEntry is associated with exactly > one date. By constrast a transaction is associated with exactly one > date, and a Split is associated with > exactly one account. Because the sum over all LotEntry's of the > Commodity ( not the AltCommodity ) is > non-zero, this is an open lot. Because it is an open lot it will be > reported in the balance sheet as an > unrealized gain/loss. Well, not exactly. A "Lot Entry" is a Split. A Lot is just a way to tie a set of transactions together by cross-referencing the set of splits from one account. An open lot shows that you still own some of the commodity (asset). There may be an unrealized gain/loss based on the current "price" of the asset -- you multiple the current price times the amount-balance (shares) of the splits in the lot, and then subtract out the value-balance of the splits in the lot. > 2) I sell 100 shares of AMD for 1000 USD on Date2. This creates a > transaction consisting of two splits: > Transaction ( Date 2) > Description Account Debit Credit > Split-> Stock Purchase AMDAccount 100 > Split-> CashAccount 1000 This is correct... > In addition we also post too the Lot Well, we link this transaction to the previous transaction by adding the split to the lot (using my terminology): > Lot ( AMDAccount ) > Amount(Shares) Value > Split-> 100 500 > Split-> -100 -1000 > > The lot is now closed because the sum of Commodity over the Lot is now > zero. Because the Lot is > now closed the sum over AltCommodity will be reported as a realized > capital gain/loss in the balance sheet. > > Is this what you meant? Please correct any inaccuracies you see here. Correct. The lot is closed because you have no shares left. The gain/loss is the sum of the values, which can be reported on the balance sheet. > Ed -derek > > > Derek Atkins wrote: > > >Read my text: IMHO there IS NO SPLIT THAT REPRESENTS THE GAIN/LOSS. > >The gain/loss is COMPUTED, based on the DIFFERENCE between purchases > >and sales of a commodity LOT. The lot is balanced when the number of > >shares hit zero. The gain/loss is the sum of the VALUES of all the > >splits. > > > >For example, if a lot contains the following three splits: > > > >Amount(Shares) Value > > 50 500 > >-20 -400 > >-30 -150 > > > >You will notice two things. > >1) this lot is "closed" (it has an amount balance of zero) > >2) you can compute the loss(gain) as the sum of the values: 500-400-150 = 50 gain > > > >You don't need a "balancing" split -- there is nothing to balance. > >And no, I do NOT believe that you should have a single, unbalanced > >split to denote losses or gains. > > > >-derek > > > >"Phillip Shelton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >>That still does not address where the balancing entry for the gain/loss is put. >(At least it does not do it for me.) And I thought that was the point of double >entry accounting. I will admit I am very new to the field of making money. > >> > >>Maybe, (And you would lean toward this, Derek?) capital gain is allowed to be >"unbalanced"? The balancing entry is the reduction of the "hard" asset. > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>The bug (IMHO) is that gnucash is not tying the purchases to the sales > >>in order to compute the gain/loss. I'm not _AS_ convinced that the > >>gain/loss MUST imply a split to an income/expense account. > >> > >>-derek > >> > >>"Phillip Shelton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > >>>Is it a bug then that the gain is currently un-balanceable? > >>> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>gnucash-devel mailing list > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > >> > > > > > > -- Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
