Since these funds have been held since before I started using Gnucash I
can't really carry over any cost basis within it. I won't worry about it
too much because I am not using the reports directly and I don't use
Gnucash for my taxes. However, it appears it handled it anyway because
the top-level brokerage account shows a value of zero now because all
the underlying funds have zeroed out and the new brokerage account shows
roughly the original value of the old account.
Fortunately with ACATs (Automated Customer Account Transfer) all of the
data and metadata transferred from one brokerage to the other. I'm able
to see all of the historic basis values at the new brokerage site for
all the funds. One less thing to worry about.
On 2023-07-05 15:48, David Carlson wrote:
AC,
Yes, to keep GnuCash happy you want to transfer the cost basis as well as
the securities to the new brokerage account. By entering the transactions
as a sale at the same price that you purchased the the security and a new
purchase at that same price, you are transferring the cost basis, Since
that is not a real sale, there is no realized gain or loss to report to the
taxman until you really do sell
If you didn't transfer the cost, then GnuCash would think that the old
account still had a cost for a now non-existent asset and the new account
got the security free. You may have to provide that same information to
your broker or custodian if they didn't get it automatically.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 3:31 PM AC <gnuc...@acarver.net> wrote:
Answering two at once:
Fred: No I did not work in split view. I was just working at the single
account level.
David: Are you saying I need to instruct GnuCash to treat the transfer
as a sale even though there was no sale thus no realized gains/losses
and no actual change in the cost basis?
On 2023-07-05 10:07, David Carlson wrote:
AC,
Fred implied, but didn't elaborate on the point that the shares in the
original brokerage account had a cost basis that was incurred when they
were purchased. When you transfer them out, that is equivalent to a sale
or closing transaction, and the cost basis should be adjusted
accordingly,
even though there were no funds involved. Of course, that exact cost
basis
needs to be added to the receiving account as if the shares were
purchased
at the original price. This used to be described in great detail in one
of
the help manuals, including the somewhat tricky procedure to enter
realized
gains when an actual sale happens but I haven't checked lately to see if
those parts are still there. I know that if you do not do those things
and
later run a trial balance or if you use the Investment Portfolio report,
you will quickly see the error of your ways.
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 11:33 AM Fred Bone <f...@mandfb.me.uk> wrote:
On 04 July 2023 at 16:29, AC said:
I recently moved some mutual funds from one brokerage to another. The
process did not involve a sale, it was just a transfer of control from
the
old to the new.
In my current books I keep mutual funds listed as subaccount under each
brokerage as such with their respective security/currency:
Investments
-Brokerage 1 (currency)
--Fund A (security A)
--Fund B (security B)
-Brokerage 2 (currency)
--Fund A (security A)
--Fund C (security C)
--Fund D (security D)
I wanted to expand this to add the new brokerage and then perform a
transfer of the funds from one to the other. Let's assume I moved the
funds under Brokerage 1 to Brokerage 3. So the tree would look like the
simplified version below (leaving out Brokerage 2 as it is unaffected):
Investments
-Brokerage 1 (currency)
--Fund A (security A)
--Fund B (security B)
-Brokerage 3 (currency)
--Fund A (security A)
--Fund B (security B)
The securities are the same because it's the same original mutual
funds,
just moved to another brokerage. The tree would be left intact with the
funds under Brokerage 1 being zeroed out and the funds under Brokerage
3
starting off with the incoming values.
My natural tendency was to create a transfer directly within Brokerage
1
Fund A that moved all the shares over to Brokerage 3 Fund A but that
didn't create the transaction I expected.
By example, I transferred Fund A on July 1 which contained 10 shares at
the price of the shares on that day. So in Brokerage 1 I entered -10
shares with a total sell price of X as listed on the statement from
Brokerage 1. The price is autocalculated and the balance correctly goes
to
zero.
Looking inside the Brokerage 3 Fund A account I only see a transaction
that has an amount in the buy column but no shares and a balance of
zero.
I can manually enter the same number of shares in that partially empty
transaction but why was my thought about the transfer incorrect? Should
it
have not transferred those shares over as well?
Did you work in split view?
I can replicate what I think you are saying if I don't enter the
separate
splits.
If I go about it the obvious way (in split view) and enter balancing
amounts then it all works.
However, I'm still on 2.6.21 ...
_______________________________________________
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
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@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
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@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
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.
