I thought there had been a (relatively) recent change to allow
investment transactions to not need a brokerage account if there was
zero amount (i.e, fees equal to the investment amount) but I can't find
anything in the git log about it. I do see Bug 408692 which mentions
this, but it is still marked as REPORTED.
The reason I noticed this is that I have one investment account which
has only one annual transaction - the annual fee is taken by selling
exactly enough of the only security in the account. In the past, this
resulted in a $0 transaction showing up in the associated brokerage
account. I just entered the annual transact (by duplicating last
year's, and adjusting the amounts.) Not only does the transaction not
appear in the Brokerage account, there is no value in the brokerage
account field. However, if I edit the transaction, the brokerage
account DOES show up, but is apparently not saved if the account has a
zero total. In addition, this year's transaction looks different from
last year's in the ledger (I've attached a screen shot) and the
category for the fee is listed twice, but the memo is not listed.
As it is really just a cosmetic issue, I suppose I'll file a wishlist
for the two transactions to look more similar, and probably to allow
the zero amount split to go to the brokerage account (user choice, I
think it should be allowed as well as not being required). My
question here is why would not haveing that extra split cause the
appearance in the ledger to change? (Note that if I edit and save the
older transaction (making and reversing some edit to the memo, for
example) it gets saved like the new transaction - without the entry for
the brokerage account.
Jack
