RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
Matt, I have to admit that I misread the tally; I did not see that the first $500 (AllocatedCash) was balancing the others. My apologies. I'll let you and Adrien work this out, since I don't have a lot of background in this. David On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 8:58, Matt Graham wrote: #yiv0595440679 #yiv0595440679 -- _filtered #yiv0595440679 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv0595440679 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv0595440679 #yiv0595440679 p.yiv0595440679MsoNormal, #yiv0595440679 li.yiv0595440679MsoNormal, #yiv0595440679 div.yiv0595440679MsoNormal {margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;}#yiv0595440679 a:link, #yiv0595440679 span.yiv0595440679MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0595440679 a:visited, #yiv0595440679 span.yiv0595440679MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:#954F72;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0595440679 .yiv0595440679MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv0595440679 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv0595440679 div.yiv0595440679WordSection1 {}#yiv0595440679 Hi Dave! Yep, that is pretty much the conclusion I’ve come to. Not sure what you are asking about in “where are you balancing the funds”. The Cr and Dr are balanced in the example. Maybe you are asking the location in the hierarchy for the accounts? It all goes up to the root account “Assets”. For this idea, I had Current Assets, Fixed assets, and Allocated Assets. All the little allocation accounts were stored in the Allocated Assets branch. They were balanced by a single account under current assets called “AllocatedCash” (as per the example below). This is the weird one – a negative asset account that reflects how much I SHOULDN’T spend out of current assets unless I am spending on my allocated causes. As per Adrian’s discussions, if you are spending out of the account that you have put your sub-account into, then there are less splits and it is far easier to understand. Using Adrien’s idea, at WORST you have a couple of transactions that are just as complex as every transaction the other way – but this is only in the rare event that you spend out of a different account from that which your sub-account is in. I still haven’t fully wrapped my head around Adrien’s most recent email, so that could create some more “Aha!” moments too. Thanks and regards, Matt From: David T. Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 2:31 PM To: matt_graham2...@hotmail.com;Adrien Monteleone; gnucash-user@gnucash.org Subject: RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] Matt, I see one huge problem: where are you balancing the funds for the allocated accounts? They need balancing, and once you add something to balance them, you might as well male them Subaccounts of checking anyway. Cheers, David On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:06, Matt Graham [Snip] If, rather than a sub-account, I use a separate asset account then there is no balancing Cr to an asset to increase the allocation. In your example, you had a balancing Cr on the parent when you allocated the money. So, we receive a $1000 pay check, and want to allocate $500 to the four accounts: Cr Income: Salary $1000 Dr Asset:Current:Checking $1000 Cr Asset:Current:AllocatedCash $500 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Vacation $250 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Insurance $150 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Dining $ 50 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Coffee&Tea $ 50 ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
Again, I think you’ve hit on it directly. To answer your question, no I can’t think of a reporting advantage. As you outline, I think reports are generally flexible enough that you can tailor them to get what you want regardless, but the dual asset allocation accounts creates extra work for that too. I fiddled with the Equity balancing Asset account concept you mentioned, and rejected it because of the ‘extra’ assets that appear. As you say, Equity balancing Equity is probably accurate, but just creates extra work. I’m pretty convinced that the simplest and most correct way to do this is to have a sub-account that you mostly spend out of. I have several accounts, but I do have one that is the main one, and I suspect that most people would. Thanks again for all your help! Matt From: Adrien Monteleone<mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 12:11 PM To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org<mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org> Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] Thanks for the run down Matt, I wouldn’t say “stupid” at all, but certainly, that method is extra work. And I don’t really see the benefit that makes the work worth the trouble. I also see that the transactions are more complicated, more cluttered, and if you ever have to go over them to track down an error, they are going to take more brain power to process and get straight. Do you get any reporting advantage with that extra layer of splits? This also requires constant reverse-balanced thinking. Something that in my experience is more taxing to make sure you’ve got the entries right. I was using something similar about a year ago, but abandoned the whole project after a month because of the extra entries required for nearly every purchase. I suppose it isn’t so bad if you only earmark a few expense purposes, but even something like ‘vacation’ can end up with multiple expense accounts affected. With the method I outlined, other than the simplicity, you also get a little extra discipline push if you divide up the sub-accounts based on the most likely physical account to draw from. (if you have more than one, I don’t) You also get to leverage the Cash Flow report to show you if you are pulling funds that are earmarked for other purposes, which can tell you if you should adjust those earmarks or improve your spending discipline. I suppose you could do the same with your virtual asset accounts, but I’d suspect the amounts would be reversed from what’s expected, making such a report difficult to follow. I can see the appeal of keeping that tracking separate, but for the present state of GnuCash, I just think it’s not the easiest method, certainly not for new users. (you do get the benefit of deleting those special accounts without affecting your regular asset/expense entries should you abandon the practice and what to clean up your account tree IF those splits are NOT included in the regular transaction, but reside in their own set.) The reason I suggested using equity accounts for that method was because the normal balance of equity accounts is credit positive. (as are liabilities) Thus if you moved those special accounts to the Equity hierarchy, their balances will look like they are supposed to. That would reduce the reverse-balanced mental gymnastics. (especially if your setting for Reversed Balanced Accounts is ‘Credit’) If you’re not really segregating funds in their normal asset place, just adding a layer of info, it probably makes more sense to use equity instead of asset. In this case, the allocations aren’t actual physical assets, but just a budgeting category. Equity is YOUR claim against your assets, so saying you have $1000 to spend on vacation makes sense to me to say it in equity. (leaving aside that the actual funds reside in your asset savings account) Since this isn’t ‘extra’ equity (above and beyond your assets less your liabilities) you’d need a single ‘reverse-balanced’ account to fix that. You don’t want your assets or equity to be overstated, so that reverse balanced account should also be an equity account. You could set it up like this: Equity:Budgeting:Allocated Equity:Budgeting:Vacation Equity:Budgeting:Insurance Equity:Budgeting:Dining Equity:Budgeting:Coffe&Tea Your Allocated account would have a reverse balance, thus a debit. It would show up as negative in GnuCash (with the Credit accounts setting) Your special purpose accounts would all have a normal credit balance, and show up as positive. When they reach zero, you’ve spent everything you’ve budgeted for that purpose. The only purpose of the ‘Allocated’ account is to prevent the special purpose accounts from affecting your total equity position. It will cause your Equity:Budgeting account parent to always be zero. (be sure to mark that parent as a placeholder as well) I suppose you could leave it off and just use the parent for balancing. That’
RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
Hi Dave! Yep, that is pretty much the conclusion I’ve come to. Not sure what you are asking about in “where are you balancing the funds”. The Cr and Dr are balanced in the example. Maybe you are asking the location in the hierarchy for the accounts? It all goes up to the root account “Assets”. For this idea, I had Current Assets, Fixed assets, and Allocated Assets. All the little allocation accounts were stored in the Allocated Assets branch. They were balanced by a single account under current assets called “AllocatedCash” (as per the example below). This is the weird one – a negative asset account that reflects how much I SHOULDN’T spend out of current assets unless I am spending on my allocated causes. As per Adrian’s discussions, if you are spending out of the account that you have put your sub-account into, then there are less splits and it is far easier to understand. Using Adrien’s idea, at WORST you have a couple of transactions that are just as complex as every transaction the other way – but this is only in the rare event that you spend out of a different account from that which your sub-account is in. I still haven’t fully wrapped my head around Adrien’s most recent email, so that could create some more “Aha!” moments too. Thanks and regards, Matt From: David T.<mailto:sunfis...@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018 2:31 PM To: matt_graham2...@hotmail.com<mailto:matt_graham2...@hotmail.com>; Adrien Monteleone<mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com>; gnucash-user@gnucash.org<mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org> Subject: RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] Matt, I see one huge problem: where are you balancing the funds for the allocated accounts? They need balancing, and once you add something to balance them, you might as well male them Subaccounts of checking anyway. Cheers, David On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:06, Matt Graham [Snip] If, rather than a sub-account, I use a separate asset account then there is no balancing Cr to an asset to increase the allocation. In your example, you had a balancing Cr on the parent when you allocated the money. So, we receive a $1000 pay check, and want to allocate $500 to the four accounts: Cr Income: Salary $1000 Dr Asset:Current:Checking $1000 Cr Asset:Current:AllocatedCash $500 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Vacation$250 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Insurance $150 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Dining $ 50 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Coffee&Tea $ 50 ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
Matt, I see one huge problem: where are you balancing the funds for the allocated accounts? They need balancing, and once you add something to balance them, you might as well male them Subaccounts of checking anyway. Cheers,David On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 4:06, Matt Graham [Snip]If, rather than a sub-account, I use a separate asset account then there is no balancing Cr to an asset to increase the allocation. In your example, you had a balancing Cr on the parent when you allocated the money. So, we receive a $1000 pay check, and want to allocate $500 to the four accounts: Cr Income: Salary $1000 Dr Asset:Current:Checking $1000 Cr Asset:Current:AllocatedCash $500 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Vacation $250 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Insurance $150 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Dining $ 50 Dr. Assets:Allocated:Coffee&Tea $ 50 ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
after this transaction, the amounts in checking and the expense are as > you’d expect (again, no change from if you didn’t use allocations). The > Current assets have been increased – become less negative, because I have $20 > less now allocated to Dining out. So there is now less money that I am > telling myself “can’t be spent”, but of course I haven’t gained more cash to > spend – this gain is offset by the reduce in cash from actually spending it. > My amount of cash allocated to Dining has been Dr (reduced) by $20 as you > expect. So I am left with $980 in my checking, $30 in my Allocated:Dining, > -$480 in my overall AllocatedCash. > > You are probably thinking “That is stupid. Why bother?”. > You’re right – it is probably extra entries for little benefit. Hence why I’m > going to try it for a few weeks before recommending before/against it in the > tutorials and concepts guide and/or attempting/requesting features in GNUCash > to support it. > The main advantage here is that it separates the allocation of money from the > account you are going to spend it from. The spending transaction would be the > same size and type if I was using a sub-account and didn’t spend from that > sub account: > Dr Expenses:Dining $20 > Cr Assets:MyCash $20 > Cr Assets:Checking:Dining $20 > Dr Assets:Checking $20 > > So if I (foolishly) chose a sub-account for allocation that I never spent > from, doing it the separated way is no extra work – still similar four > splits. But as you say, if you use a sub-account and spend from it most of > the time, the messy four line transaction becomes a simple > Cr Checking:Dining $20 > Dr Expenses:Dining $20 > > Does this make sense? > > Thanks and regards, > > Matt > > From: Adrien Monteleone <mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com> > Sent: Tuesday, 30 January 2018 6:45 PM > To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org <mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org> > Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] > > Matt, > > You lost me again. > > I don’t understand why you’d have a negative 'segmented spending money' asset. > > You receive a paycheck, say $1000. > > You earmark 50% of that into various sub-accounts. > > You still have $1000. > > There’s no negative balance on any asset account. > > Perhaps your checking account holds $500 of that money, and each of four > sub-accounts hold $250, $150, $50 & $50 respectively. That all adds up to > $1000. > > The act of earmarking funds moves you from one account with a single positive > $1000 balance to 5 accounts totaling a positive $1000 balance NONE of which > are negative. > > Where’s the ‘negative segmented money account?’ > > Please describe with debits and credits. I don’t see it. What I see is this: > > Receipt of money with segregation: > > Dr. Assets:Checking $500 > Dr. Assets:Checking:Vacation$250 > Dr. Assets:Checking:Insurance $150 > Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining $ 50 > Dr. Assets:Checking:Coffee&Tea $ 50 > Cr. Income:Salary $1000 > > When you go out for lunch I see this: > > Dr. Expenses:Dining $20 > Cr. Assets:Checking:Dining $20 > > How does recording an expense INCREASE the allocated cash for Dining as you > describe? (making it less negative) How was it negative in the first place? > What transaction did you record to make it so? Note, for an asset to be > ‘negative’ it has to have a ‘credit’ balance, that is, credits have to be > greater than debits. Making an asset account ‘less negative’ is a debit > transaction. (since asset accounts are usually debit positive balanced) > Debits don’t decrease an asset, they increase it. Spending money never gives > you more to spend, it means you have less. Spending money is always > (eventually) a credit to assets, never a debit. > > I can’t see any scenario where that above example of going out for lunch > looks like this: > > Dr. Expenses:Dining $20 > Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining $20 > Cr. $40 > > If that would even begin to make any sense why $40 is moving somewhere > instead of just $20. > > Note, doing this: > > Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining $20 > Cr. Expenses:Dining $20 > > Is an incorrect transaction if you SPENT the money. (as opposed to receiving > a refund, or correcting a prior error) Crediting an expense is a > refund/reversing condition, not a normal expenditure. > > When you record the receipt of money, that goes to an income/revenue account, > split with the physical asset account fo
RE: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
size and type if I was using a sub-account and didn’t spend from that sub account: Dr Expenses:Dining $20 Cr Assets:MyCash $20 Cr Assets:Checking:Dining $20 Dr Assets:Checking $20 So if I (foolishly) chose a sub-account for allocation that I never spent from, doing it the separated way is no extra work – still similar four splits. But as you say, if you use a sub-account and spend from it most of the time, the messy four line transaction becomes a simple Cr Checking:Dining $20 Dr Expenses:Dining $20 Does this make sense? Thanks and regards, Matt From: Adrien Monteleone<mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, 30 January 2018 6:45 PM To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org<mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org> Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] Matt, You lost me again. I don’t understand why you’d have a negative 'segmented spending money' asset. You receive a paycheck, say $1000. You earmark 50% of that into various sub-accounts. You still have $1000. There’s no negative balance on any asset account. Perhaps your checking account holds $500 of that money, and each of four sub-accounts hold $250, $150, $50 & $50 respectively. That all adds up to $1000. The act of earmarking funds moves you from one account with a single positive $1000 balance to 5 accounts totaling a positive $1000 balance NONE of which are negative. Where’s the ‘negative segmented money account?’ Please describe with debits and credits. I don’t see it. What I see is this: Receipt of money with segregation: Dr. Assets:Checking $500 Dr. Assets:Checking:Vacation$250 Dr. Assets:Checking:Insurance $150 Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining $ 50 Dr. Assets:Checking:Coffee&Tea $ 50 Cr. Income:Salary $1000 When you go out for lunch I see this: Dr. Expenses:Dining $20 Cr. Assets:Checking:Dining $20 How does recording an expense INCREASE the allocated cash for Dining as you describe? (making it less negative) How was it negative in the first place? What transaction did you record to make it so? Note, for an asset to be ‘negative’ it has to have a ‘credit’ balance, that is, credits have to be greater than debits. Making an asset account ‘less negative’ is a debit transaction. (since asset accounts are usually debit positive balanced) Debits don’t decrease an asset, they increase it. Spending money never gives you more to spend, it means you have less. Spending money is always (eventually) a credit to assets, never a debit. I can’t see any scenario where that above example of going out for lunch looks like this: Dr. Expenses:Dining $20 Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining $20 Cr. $40 If that would even begin to make any sense why $40 is moving somewhere instead of just $20. Note, doing this: Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining $20 Cr. Expenses:Dining $20 Is an incorrect transaction if you SPENT the money. (as opposed to receiving a refund, or correcting a prior error) Crediting an expense is a refund/reversing condition, not a normal expenditure. When you record the receipt of money, that goes to an income/revenue account, split with the physical asset account for the form you received the payment in. Generally, this will be a credit to ‘income’ and a debit to ‘cash.’ Where and how do you record the receipt of money as a credit to an asset instead and how does that balance against your credit to your income account? i.e.— Dr. $1000 Cr. Income:Salary $1000 Cr. Assets:?? Regards, Adrien > On Jan 29, 2018, at 11:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote: > > Ah, true. I guess this is why I favored "triggered transactions " rather than > "template transactions". > > I want a transaction involving expense account "spending money" to > automatically add two more splits to reduce the asset account "segmented > spending money" balanced by increasing the value of "allocated cash" asset > acct (increase = make it less negative). > > For saving up for something expensive, I would still set up the above, but I > would need to manually change the numbers if I wanted to return the > allocation to zero. > > So when I enter: > > Cr account I used to pay insurance 1150 > Dr expense account for insurance (with the trigger attached) 1150 > > I would want gnucash to automatically add the splits > > Cr account I am using to segment insurance money 1150 > Dr account showing allocated cash 1150. > > I would the (during my reconciling/budget review) need to amend that > transaction (or create a new one to return the insurance allocation to zero. > > For many of my other money allocations (eg restaurants/cafe) I wouldnt change > it - underspending means the
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
Matt, You lost me again. I don’t understand why you’d have a negative 'segmented spending money' asset. You receive a paycheck, say $1000. You earmark 50% of that into various sub-accounts. You still have $1000. There’s no negative balance on any asset account. Perhaps your checking account holds $500 of that money, and each of four sub-accounts hold $250, $150, $50 & $50 respectively. That all adds up to $1000. The act of earmarking funds moves you from one account with a single positive $1000 balance to 5 accounts totaling a positive $1000 balance NONE of which are negative. Where’s the ‘negative segmented money account?’ Please describe with debits and credits. I don’t see it. What I see is this: Receipt of money with segregation: Dr. Assets:Checking $500 Dr. Assets:Checking:Vacation$250 Dr. Assets:Checking:Insurance $150 Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining $ 50 Dr. Assets:Checking:Coffee&Tea $ 50 Cr. Income:Salary $1000 When you go out for lunch I see this: Dr. Expenses:Dining $20 Cr. Assets:Checking:Dining $20 How does recording an expense INCREASE the allocated cash for Dining as you describe? (making it less negative) How was it negative in the first place? What transaction did you record to make it so? Note, for an asset to be ‘negative’ it has to have a ‘credit’ balance, that is, credits have to be greater than debits. Making an asset account ‘less negative’ is a debit transaction. (since asset accounts are usually debit positive balanced) Debits don’t decrease an asset, they increase it. Spending money never gives you more to spend, it means you have less. Spending money is always (eventually) a credit to assets, never a debit. I can’t see any scenario where that above example of going out for lunch looks like this: Dr. Expenses:Dining $20 Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining $20 Cr. $40 If that would even begin to make any sense why $40 is moving somewhere instead of just $20. Note, doing this: Dr. Assets:Checking:Dining $20 Cr. Expenses:Dining $20 Is an incorrect transaction if you SPENT the money. (as opposed to receiving a refund, or correcting a prior error) Crediting an expense is a refund/reversing condition, not a normal expenditure. When you record the receipt of money, that goes to an income/revenue account, split with the physical asset account for the form you received the payment in. Generally, this will be a credit to ‘income’ and a debit to ‘cash.’ Where and how do you record the receipt of money as a credit to an asset instead and how does that balance against your credit to your income account? i.e.— Dr. $1000 Cr. Income:Salary $1000 Cr. Assets:?? Regards, Adrien > On Jan 29, 2018, at 11:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote: > > Ah, true. I guess this is why I favored "triggered transactions " rather than > "template transactions". > > I want a transaction involving expense account "spending money" to > automatically add two more splits to reduce the asset account "segmented > spending money" balanced by increasing the value of "allocated cash" asset > acct (increase = make it less negative). > > For saving up for something expensive, I would still set up the above, but I > would need to manually change the numbers if I wanted to return the > allocation to zero. > > So when I enter: > > Cr account I used to pay insurance 1150 > Dr expense account for insurance (with the trigger attached) 1150 > > I would want gnucash to automatically add the splits > > Cr account I am using to segment insurance money 1150 > Dr account showing allocated cash 1150. > > I would the (during my reconciling/budget review) need to amend that > transaction (or create a new one to return the insurance allocation to zero. > > For many of my other money allocations (eg restaurants/cafe) I wouldnt change > it - underspending means the money is available for later. > > Am I understanding you right? > > > Thanks and regards, > Matt > > > ---- Original message ---- > From: Mike or Penny Novack > Date: 30/1/18 09:31 (GMT+10:00) > To: Matt Graham > Cc: gnucash-user@gnucash.org > Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] > > On 1/28/2018 8:11 PM, Matt Graham wrote: > When you look at what liabilities really are, Adrien and I concluded > on this thread that this situation (segmenting money for future) is really > using a separate asset account. After all - creating a liability INCREASES > your cash available. ... > Yes, the problem precisely, we aren't assigning the same meaning to >
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
Ah, true. I guess this is why I favored "triggered transactions " rather than "template transactions". I want a transaction involving expense account "spending money" to automatically add two more splits to reduce the asset account "segmented spending money" balanced by increasing the value of "allocated cash" asset acct (increase = make it less negative). For saving up for something expensive, I would still set up the above, but I would need to manually change the numbers if I wanted to return the allocation to zero. So when I enter: Cr account I used to pay insurance 1150 Dr expense account for insurance (with the trigger attached) 1150 I would want gnucash to automatically add the splits Cr account I am using to segment insurance money 1150 Dr account showing allocated cash 1150. I would the (during my reconciling/budget review) need to amend that transaction (or create a new one to return the insurance allocation to zero. For many of my other money allocations (eg restaurants/cafe) I wouldnt change it - underspending means the money is available for later. Am I understanding you right? Thanks and regards, Matt Original message From: Mike or Penny Novack Date: 30/1/18 09:31 (GMT+10:00) To: Matt Graham Cc: gnucash-user@gnucash.org Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] On 1/28/2018 8:11 PM, Matt Graham wrote: When you look at what liabilities really are, Adrien and I concluded on this thread that this situation (segmenting money for future) is really using a separate asset account. After all - creating a liability INCREASES your cash available. ... Yes, the problem precisely, we aren't assigning the same meaning to "available" and "liability" But your example of what you would like to see: Template transactions (I'd probably call them "Triggerred transactions", but it doesn'tmatter) sound awesome. As someone else highlighted, there are implementation difficulties to consider, but I dont think that it would be too onerous. In terms of spending from another account but recording against a sub-account, its easy: Dr Exp whatever account Cr Cash I pay for something awesome Dr Parent account the amount I paid Cr sub-account the amount I paid SPECIAL CASE of a GENERAL requirement. The special case might be easy to implement BUT in general the amounts are NOT going to be the same. This is actually a fairly common situation for me, say one of the organizations SELLS a tee shirt (fundraising, but tee shirts might also be being given away to volunteers). Db Cash Cr Sales Db Cost of goods sold Cr Tee shirt inventory << the shirts might be being sold for $20 but cost the organization $7 >> Or, and though this is common with our restricted funds (not exactly matching) I will give an example precisely for your situation. You socked away into this reserve $100/mo toward the annual renewal of your car insurance based on your ESTIMATE of what that annual bill will be. But when the bill arrives it is for $1150 or $1250. In both cases you pay the bill and release the restriction, yes? << in one case, you had more in the fund than needed but it still can be released to general purposes, in the other you used all of the fund AND had to add some general funds >> Michael D Novack ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
On 1/28/2018 8:11 PM, Matt Graham wrote: When you look at what liabilities really are, Adrien and I concluded on this thread that this situation (segmenting money for future) is really using a separate asset account. After all - creating a liability INCREASES your cash available. ... Yes, the problem precisely, we aren't assigning the same meaning to "available" and "liability" But your example of what you would like to see: Template transactions (I'd probably call them "Triggerred transactions", but it doesn'tmatter) sound awesome. As someone else highlighted, there are implementation difficulties to consider, but I dont think that it would be too onerous. In terms of spending from another account but recording against a sub-account, its easy: Dr Exp whatever account Cr Cash I pay for something awesome Dr Parent account the amount I paid Cr sub-account the amount I paid SPECIAL CASE of a GENERAL requirement. The special case might be easy to implement BUT in general the amounts are NOT going to be the same. This is actually a fairly common situation for me, say one of the organizations SELLS a tee shirt (fundraising, but tee shirts might also be being given away to volunteers). Db Cash Cr Sales Db Cost of goods sold Cr Tee shirt inventory << the shirts might be being sold for $20 but cost the organization $7 >> Or, and though this is common with our restricted funds (not exactly matching) I will give an example precisely for your situation. You socked away into this reserve $100/mo toward the annual renewal of your car insurance based on your ESTIMATE of what that annual bill will be. But when the bill arrives it is for $1150 or $1250. In both cases you pay the bill and release the restriction, yes? << in one case, you had more in the fund than needed but it still can be released to general purposes, in the other you used all of the fund AND had to add some general funds >> Michael D Novack ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
Ah, sorry Mike. Very different concept based on the way I think: Using liability means: Dr increase cash Cr increase liability Perfect for what you are talking about. But what I want - segmenting funds -decreases available cash for other purposes, so I would want to Cr cash to reflect it not being available, but then I would have a negative liability, which makes no sense (if someone owes me, I would call it an asset anyway) So it is probably neater (or at worst no different) just using an asset account to balance the segmenting of the cash (asset). As you mentioned a few emails ago, doing this effectively adds another layer of tracking thst may or may not be worth the effort. Transactions triggered as you discussed may greatly improve automation - basically getting closer to a "batch change" functionality. Ive got an 80% solution, so Ill write that up see how it goes. Thanks again everyone, Matt Original message From: Adrien Monteleone Date: 29/1/18 15:22 (GMT+10:00) To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] Matt, What Mike was talking about with Liabilities was with respect to ‘reserve’ or ‘restricted’ funds. In the case of non-profits taking donations that can be earmarked those funds have to be legally separated and cannot be used for any desired purpose. As well, ‘deposits’ which are pre-payments set aside for particular purpose can’t be thrown into a general funds pool. (you might have to refund them if you don’t deliver the requested goods or services) But both of those cases are real life liabilities. The funds don’t ‘belong’ to whomever received them unless and until they are used for the appropriate purpose. While what we are discussing is somewhat similar in concept, in real life, there is no actual liability incurred by not wanting to spend all you have and not save for vacation or the occasional night on the town, so using that type of account, while mathematically possible, isn’t necessarily the best idea to model what’s going on in the real world. Regards, Adrien > On Jan 28, 2018, at 7:11 PM, Matt Graham wrote: > > :-) you missed one of the previous posts. Using Liability accounts that way > is adding anoter "layer" of accounting to your system. When you look at what > liabilities really are, Adrien and I concluded on this thread that this > situation (segmenting money for future) is really using a separate asset > account. After all - creating a liability INCREASES your cash available. > However, shifting it to another asset account (either sub-account or > completely different area) reduces cash available AND allows you to record > the increasing amount you have segmented. If I get a chance, I think I'll > type all this up with some examples (it is easier to show with exampes). > > Thanks and regards, > Matt > Original message > From: Mike or Penny Novack > Date: 29/1/18 00:51 (GMT+10:00) > To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org > Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] > > On 1/27/2018 10:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote: >> Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the >> process we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really >> a case of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash >> is already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts >> in the recociliation window. > Not exactly. This is a case where the term "budgeting" is being used in > different ways meaning different things. Budgets my be legal > (organizations, government entities) or advisory (personal, business) > though of course businesses might have requirements to set aside funds > << might be in the terms of a loan, etc. >> > > ONE way of doing this is with liability accounts (typical -- account for > amounts needed for taxes) but that method can also be used for "reserve > funds" << I deal mainly with non-profits where "restricted funds" are > common >> > > Note that partitioning of a checking account in this way earlier > described is still just "advisory" as it would NOT prevent you from > writing a check for more than the balance remaining in the unrestricted > portion of the account. Just you can't do that without seeing that you > are doing it. > > Michael D Novack > > > ___ > gnucash-user mailing list > gnucash-user@gnucash.org > To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnucash.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnucash-user&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd653d44ededf436304a408d566563154%7C84df9
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
I’m not sure I’d say ‘whatever’ the users request, certainly any software is a product of the developers and such things are their choice. Being open source as GnuCash is, if you find fundamental disagreement on that point, you can fork. But I’ve found the GnuCash developers to be very amenable to change (they have lots in the works themselves) but their resources are very limited and outside of squashing bugs their priority right now is behind the scenes stuff. The reason for that is once they get the code modernized and structured the way they need it, they’ll be able to open up much more possibility for new features and reporting. The reason I used the term ‘template’ was that the already existing ‘scheduled’ transactions are already ‘triggered.’ It’s just that they trigger on a date, not an event like adding a particular kind of transaction or in a particular account. Scheduled transactions already use templates and those are saved. It’s the ‘fire on demand’ rather than ‘fire on a schedule’ functionality I think will be needed to better implement the savings mechanisms we’re discussing. And yes, one can always spend funds at any time out of an account those funds don’t reside in, but as you see, that either requires at least two extra splits, or a separate transfer transaction prior to the expense transaction. Avoiding doing so not only keeps the visual clutter down and confusion to a minimum but also is part of enforcing the savings plan in the first place. Regards, Adrien > On Jan 28, 2018, at 7:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote: > > Agree with your other email! A program should entertain whatever users are > requesting for better functionality. Of course, open source volunteer > developers can't be expected to drop everything to implement "my awesome > idea". Hence why I'm going to try to contibute (sigh, always need more time). > > Template transactions (I'd probably call them "Triggerred transactions", but > it doesn'tmatter) sound awesome. As someone else highlighted, there are > implementation difficulties to consider, but I dont think that it would be > too onerous. > > In terms of spending from another account but recording against a > sub-account, its easy: > Dr Exp whatever account > Cr Cash I pay for something awesome > Dr Parent account the amount I paid > Cr sub-account the amount I paid > > This is (like all of our segregating money transactions) a virtual one, but > it wont affect your reconciling (because as discussed previously we are > reconciling by the parent and including sub-accounts). > Hmmm now that I re-read your email, I think you might have meant this > already. Sorry! > > Thanks and regards, > Matt > > > Original message > From: Adrien Monteleone <mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com>> > Date: 28/1/18 15:33 (GMT+10:00) > To: GNU Cash User <mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org>> > Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] > > You can already use formulas in scheduled transactions, I just don’t think > you can use a present GC register value as a variable. (such as x% of the > balance of Assets:Checking) I could be wrong. It should be possible though to > use the value of one split as a variable so some auto-allocation might be > possible. > > There’s also the issue with triggering the transaction based on an event > other than a date stamp. (such as triggering after you post a credit to > income or a debit to an checking account) > > What we really need there isn’t so much a Scheduled Transaction but a > Template Transaction. (that can retain formulas) > > As for keeping accounts straight, if someone in the real world wants to spend > money from a savings account by writing a check on their checking account - > that’s physically impossible. (barring auto adjusting as overdraft > protection) I don’t see why GnuCash should be any different. Trying to make > that possible I think would lead to all sorts of confusion as to where money > came from or where it should be. To help reduce the tendency to do so, I > suggested splitting up the sub-accounts based on where you are most likely to > draw funds from for those particular purposes. Otherwise, you’d have to do a > transfer from say ‘Savings’ to ‘Checking’ in GnuCash first just like you > would in the real world. But if you’re in the habit of spending from any ole’ > source for any ole’ purpose then by all means, keep the sub-accounts > separate, you’ll just have to include the transfer split in the expense > transaction or else do a separate transfer transaction. > > Regards, > Adrien > > > On Jan 27, 2018, at 9:25 PM, Matt Graham > <mailto:matt_graham2...@hotm
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
Matt, What Mike was talking about with Liabilities was with respect to ‘reserve’ or ‘restricted’ funds. In the case of non-profits taking donations that can be earmarked those funds have to be legally separated and cannot be used for any desired purpose. As well, ‘deposits’ which are pre-payments set aside for particular purpose can’t be thrown into a general funds pool. (you might have to refund them if you don’t deliver the requested goods or services) But both of those cases are real life liabilities. The funds don’t ‘belong’ to whomever received them unless and until they are used for the appropriate purpose. While what we are discussing is somewhat similar in concept, in real life, there is no actual liability incurred by not wanting to spend all you have and not save for vacation or the occasional night on the town, so using that type of account, while mathematically possible, isn’t necessarily the best idea to model what’s going on in the real world. Regards, Adrien > On Jan 28, 2018, at 7:11 PM, Matt Graham wrote: > > :-) you missed one of the previous posts. Using Liability accounts that way > is adding anoter "layer" of accounting to your system. When you look at what > liabilities really are, Adrien and I concluded on this thread that this > situation (segmenting money for future) is really using a separate asset > account. After all - creating a liability INCREASES your cash available. > However, shifting it to another asset account (either sub-account or > completely different area) reduces cash available AND allows you to record > the increasing amount you have segmented. If I get a chance, I think I'll > type all this up with some examples (it is easier to show with exampes). > > Thanks and regards, > Matt > Original message > From: Mike or Penny Novack > Date: 29/1/18 00:51 (GMT+10:00) > To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org > Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] > > On 1/27/2018 10:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote: >> Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the >> process we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really >> a case of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash >> is already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts >> in the recociliation window. > Not exactly. This is a case where the term "budgeting" is being used in > different ways meaning different things. Budgets my be legal > (organizations, government entities) or advisory (personal, business) > though of course businesses might have requirements to set aside funds > << might be in the terms of a loan, etc. >> > > ONE way of doing this is with liability accounts (typical -- account for > amounts needed for taxes) but that method can also be used for "reserve > funds" << I deal mainly with non-profits where "restricted funds" are > common >> > > Note that partitioning of a checking account in this way earlier > described is still just "advisory" as it would NOT prevent you from > writing a check for more than the balance remaining in the unrestricted > portion of the account. Just you can't do that without seeing that you > are doing it. > > Michael D Novack > > > ___ > gnucash-user mailing list > gnucash-user@gnucash.org > To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnucash.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnucash-user&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd653d44ededf436304a408d566563154%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636527442736383577&sdata=2IRNnuUZ4u9Vu%2FEryYTBw6QSBfRJOx8OV0%2FBBYbZn%2BM%3D&reserved=0 > If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see > https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.gnucash.org%2Fwiki%2FMailing_Lists&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd653d44ededf436304a408d566563154%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636527442736383577&sdata=sveoJ58ma1r3tnK4q1zqT5IuppYFxRlvmnJQrOj7g8E%3D&reserved=0 > for more information. > - > 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 > If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see > https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. > - > Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. > You can do this by using Reply-To-List
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
Agree with your other email! A program should entertain whatever users are requesting for better functionality. Of course, open source volunteer developers can't be expected to drop everything to implement "my awesome idea". Hence why I'm going to try to contibute (sigh, always need more time). Template transactions (I'd probably call them "Triggerred transactions", but it doesn'tmatter) sound awesome. As someone else highlighted, there are implementation difficulties to consider, but I dont think that it would be too onerous. In terms of spending from another account but recording against a sub-account, its easy: Dr Exp whatever account Cr Cash I pay for something awesome Dr Parent account the amount I paid Cr sub-account the amount I paid This is (like all of our segregating money transactions) a virtual one, but it wont affect your reconciling (because as discussed previously we are reconciling by the parent and including sub-accounts). Hmmm now that I re-read your email, I think you might have meant this already. Sorry! Thanks and regards, Matt Original message From: Adrien Monteleone Date: 28/1/18 15:33 (GMT+10:00) To: GNU Cash User Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] You can already use formulas in scheduled transactions, I just don’t think you can use a present GC register value as a variable. (such as x% of the balance of Assets:Checking) I could be wrong. It should be possible though to use the value of one split as a variable so some auto-allocation might be possible. There’s also the issue with triggering the transaction based on an event other than a date stamp. (such as triggering after you post a credit to income or a debit to an checking account) What we really need there isn’t so much a Scheduled Transaction but a Template Transaction. (that can retain formulas) As for keeping accounts straight, if someone in the real world wants to spend money from a savings account by writing a check on their checking account - that’s physically impossible. (barring auto adjusting as overdraft protection) I don’t see why GnuCash should be any different. Trying to make that possible I think would lead to all sorts of confusion as to where money came from or where it should be. To help reduce the tendency to do so, I suggested splitting up the sub-accounts based on where you are most likely to draw funds from for those particular purposes. Otherwise, you’d have to do a transfer from say ‘Savings’ to ‘Checking’ in GnuCash first just like you would in the real world. But if you’re in the habit of spending from any ole’ source for any ole’ purpose then by all means, keep the sub-accounts separate, you’ll just have to include the transfer split in the expense transaction or else do a separate transfer transaction. Regards, Adrien > On Jan 27, 2018, at 9:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote: > > Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process > we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case > of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is > already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in > the recociliation window. > > I'm going to try this out over the next week or so and then try to > contriubute to the Tutorial and concepts guide on it. It can get pretty > complicated (for beginners) when you segment the money in your savings > acount, and then want to spend out of cash/checking etc. Is a pretty common > thing that people want out of Gnucash. > > After trying it, I'll also be in a position to suggest any feature changes > that would make it easier. Hinted already by others is the feature of > "formula" based data entry - doing data entry a bit like a spreadsheet, where > simple equations can be used often based on the values present in other > accounts/transactions... I'll leave that for now and explore it in my next > big discussion with you all! > > Thanks again - greatly appreciate your time, > Matt > > > Original message > From: Adrien Monteleone <mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com>> > Date: 27/1/18 18:15 (GMT+10:00) > To: GNU Cash User mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org>> > Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] > > That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks! > > > Regards, > Adrien > > > On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell > <mailto:tommy.truss...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split my comment > > into a different thread. I'm not responding to any particular comment, and > > this isn't quite germane to budgeting. > > > &
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
:-) you missed one of the previous posts. Using Liability accounts that way is adding anoter "layer" of accounting to your system. When you look at what liabilities really are, Adrien and I concluded on this thread that this situation (segmenting money for future) is really using a separate asset account. After all - creating a liability INCREASES your cash available. However, shifting it to another asset account (either sub-account or completely different area) reduces cash available AND allows you to record the increasing amount you have segmented. If I get a chance, I think I'll type all this up with some examples (it is easier to show with exampes). Thanks and regards, Matt Original message From: Mike or Penny Novack Date: 29/1/18 00:51 (GMT+10:00) To: gnucash-user@gnucash.org Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] On 1/27/2018 10:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote: > Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process > we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case > of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is > already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in > the recociliation window. Not exactly. This is a case where the term "budgeting" is being used in different ways meaning different things. Budgets my be legal (organizations, government entities) or advisory (personal, business) though of course businesses might have requirements to set aside funds << might be in the terms of a loan, etc. >> ONE way of doing this is with liability accounts (typical -- account for amounts needed for taxes) but that method can also be used for "reserve funds" << I deal mainly with non-profits where "restricted funds" are common >> Note that partitioning of a checking account in this way earlier described is still just "advisory" as it would NOT prevent you from writing a check for more than the balance remaining in the unrestricted portion of the account. Just you can't do that without seeing that you are doing it. Michael D Novack ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.gnucash.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnucash-user&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd653d44ededf436304a408d566563154%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636527442736383577&sdata=2IRNnuUZ4u9Vu%2FEryYTBw6QSBfRJOx8OV0%2FBBYbZn%2BM%3D&reserved=0 If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwiki.gnucash.org%2Fwiki%2FMailing_Lists&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd653d44ededf436304a408d566563154%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C636527442736383577&sdata=sveoJ58ma1r3tnK4q1zqT5IuppYFxRlvmnJQrOj7g8E%3D&reserved=0 for more information. - 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 If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
oney within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is > already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in > the recociliation window. > > I'm going to try this out over the next week or so and then try to > contriubute to the Tutorial and concepts guide on it. It can get pretty > complicated (for beginners) when you segment the money in your savings > acount, and then want to spend out of cash/checking etc. Is a pretty common > thing that people want out of Gnucash. > > After trying it, I'll also be in a position to suggest any feature changes > that would make it easier. Hinted already by others is the feature of > "formula" based data entry - doing data entry a bit like a spreadsheet, where > simple equations can be used often based on the values present in other > accounts/transactions... I'll leave that for now and explore it in my next > big discussion with you all! > > Thanks again - greatly appreciate your time, > Matt > > > Original message > From: Adrien Monteleone > Date: 27/1/18 18:15 (GMT+10:00) > To: GNU Cash User > Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] > > That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks! > > > Regards, > Adrien > >> On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell wrote: >> >> I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split my comment >> into a different thread. I'm not responding to any particular comment, and >> this isn't quite germane to budgeting. >> >> But I want to clear up a few misunderstandings I'm seeing folks express >> about reconciling with sub-accounts. Subaccounts work very well, but they >> do take a little maintenance. >> >> WHEN TO USE SUBACCOUNTS >> >> You can use subaccounts for several purposes, including budgeting, holding >> onto money that isn't "yours" (a bond you're holding from a contractor for >> successful completion of a project, for instance), identifying earmarked >> funds, OR (as in the example below) simply stopping yourself from spending >> down the account more than you'd like. >> >> (If folks have additional suggested uses for subaccounts, bring em on!) >> >> EXAMPLE: MINIMUM BALANCE VIEW >> >> Here's a real-world (well it's real in MY world) example -- avoiding >> "minimum balance" fees. The bank name has been changed to protect the >> bookkeeper. ;-) >> >> I have a checking account at BigBank. >> >> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking >> >> The terms on that bank account say it doesn't cost me anything UNLESS the >> balance drops below $2500, at which point I have to pay $8.50/month. (There >> are some other miscellaneous fees, all higher when the balance goes low.) >> >> SO to help avoid the $8.50/month expense, I created a sub account: >> >> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance >> >> Then I created a transaction dated 2/15/2015, transferring $2500 from the >> account to its subaccount: >> >> (This is a representation of the BigBank Checking two-line auto-split >> register. Items in the right column are "cr" and items in the left column >> are "dr".) >> >> 2/15/2015 min Minimum Balance 2500.00cr >> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance $2500.00dr >> Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking $2500.00cr >> >> When I reconciled my account the first time after creating this >> transaction, I made sure to tick the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox on the >> Reconcile Information dialog. I (as always) verified the ENDING balance >> information exactly as it was shown on the bank's statement. >> >> Also that first time I reconciled, I noticed TWO items to clear that >> weren't actually on the bank statement -- $2500 in the funds in side and >> $2500 in the funds out side of the reconcile window. I marked them BOTH as >> "cleared." >> >> From now on, I notice a few things have changed from before -- >> >> o - My default balance when I reconcile AND the running balance in the >> BigBank Checking register will always show $2500 lower than I actually >> have. >> >> o - When I reconcile I always have to remember to override the default and >> enter the ENDING balance as it is shown on BigBank's statement. >> >> o - When I reconcile the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox is ticked and it >> needs to stay ticked.
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
On 1/27/2018 10:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote: Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in the recociliation window. Not exactly. This is a case where the term "budgeting" is being used in different ways meaning different things. Budgets my be legal (organizations, government entities) or advisory (personal, business) though of course businesses might have requirements to set aside funds << might be in the terms of a loan, etc. >> ONE way of doing this is with liability accounts (typical -- account for amounts needed for taxes) but that method can also be used for "reserve funds" << I deal mainly with non-profits where "restricted funds" are common >> Note that partitioning of a checking account in this way earlier described is still just "advisory" as it would NOT prevent you from writing a check for more than the balance remaining in the unrestricted portion of the account. Just you can't do that without seeing that you are doing it. Michael D Novack ___ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. - Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
I'm glad you're going to look at documenting your suggestions in the Tutorial. I imagine they would fit as a special section in the budgets chapter. As for the idea of having formulas active in the register, I think that there are a number of issues that need consideration and addressing. First, when entering transactions, you already can enter numeric formulas (35/57), and Gnucash will calculate these. If I am entering transactions for real accounting events, then that is all I really need, it seems to me. Calculations with variables would only arise for future, tentative transactions. But entering future, tentative transactions goes counter to the idea that an accounting package tracks real transactions--using real money--rather than potential transactions. This has been where such discussions have foundered in the past on these lists. The scheduled transactions module attempts to finesse this by allowing formulas which are processed separately, and which create real transactions at specified points in time. I imagine also that activating variable-based calculations into the register itself would require some serious reprogramming, and I do not know how likely that is to happen. I have read here that the register code is challenging to work with, and that an attempt to update the register has stalled. Personally, I have come to believe that budgeting is fundamentally different from accounting, and keep them separate. I use a spreadsheet to track the few areas I choose to budget, and have a report in Gnucash that gives me usage numbers for those areas, which I transfer over manually. Gnucash's budget tools always hurt too much for my brain. David On January 28, 2018, at 8:27 AM, Matt Graham wrote: Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in the recociliation window. I'm going to try this out over the next week or so and then try to contriubute to the Tutorial and concepts guide on it. It can get pretty complicated (for beginners) when you segment the money in your savings acount, and then want to spend out of cash/checking etc. Is a pretty common thing that people want out of Gnucash. After trying it, I'll also be in a position to suggest any feature changes that would make it easier. Hinted already by others is the feature of "formula" based data entry - doing data entry a bit like a spreadsheet, where simple equations can be used often based on the values present in other accounts/transactions... I'll leave that for now and explore it in my next big discussion with you all! Thanks again - greatly appreciate your time, Matt Original message From: Adrien Monteleone Date: 27/1/18 18:15 (GMT+10:00) To: GNU Cash User Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks! Regards, Adrien > On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell wrote: > > I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split my comment > into a different thread. I'm not responding to any particular comment, and > this isn't quite germane to budgeting. > > But I want to clear up a few misunderstandings I'm seeing folks express > about reconciling with sub-accounts. Subaccounts work very well, but they > do take a little maintenance. > > WHEN TO USE SUBACCOUNTS > > You can use subaccounts for several purposes, including budgeting, holding > onto money that isn't "yours" (a bond you're holding from a contractor for > successful completion of a project, for instance), identifying earmarked > funds, OR (as in the example below) simply stopping yourself from spending > down the account more than you'd like. > > (If folks have additional suggested uses for subaccounts, bring em on!) > > EXAMPLE: MINIMUM BALANCE VIEW > > Here's a real-world (well it's real in MY world) example -- avoiding > "minimum balance" fees. The bank name has been changed to protect the > bookkeeper. ;-) > > I have a checking account at BigBank. > > Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking > > The terms on that bank account say it doesn't cost me anything UNLESS the > balance drops below $2500, at which point I have to pay $8.50/month. (There > are some other miscellaneous fees, all higher when the balance goes low.) > > SO to help avoid the $8.50/month expense, I created a sub account: > > Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance > > Then I created a transaction dated 2/15/2015, transferring $2500 from the > account to
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
You can already use formulas in scheduled transactions, I just don’t think you can use a present GC register value as a variable. (such as x% of the balance of Assets:Checking) I could be wrong. It should be possible though to use the value of one split as a variable so some auto-allocation might be possible. There’s also the issue with triggering the transaction based on an event other than a date stamp. (such as triggering after you post a credit to income or a debit to an checking account) What we really need there isn’t so much a Scheduled Transaction but a Template Transaction. (that can retain formulas) As for keeping accounts straight, if someone in the real world wants to spend money from a savings account by writing a check on their checking account - that’s physically impossible. (barring auto adjusting as overdraft protection) I don’t see why GnuCash should be any different. Trying to make that possible I think would lead to all sorts of confusion as to where money came from or where it should be. To help reduce the tendency to do so, I suggested splitting up the sub-accounts based on where you are most likely to draw funds from for those particular purposes. Otherwise, you’d have to do a transfer from say ‘Savings’ to ‘Checking’ in GnuCash first just like you would in the real world. But if you’re in the habit of spending from any ole’ source for any ole’ purpose then by all means, keep the sub-accounts separate, you’ll just have to include the transfer split in the expense transaction or else do a separate transfer transaction. Regards, Adrien > On Jan 27, 2018, at 9:25 PM, Matt Graham wrote: > > Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process > we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case > of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is > already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in > the recociliation window. > > I'm going to try this out over the next week or so and then try to > contriubute to the Tutorial and concepts guide on it. It can get pretty > complicated (for beginners) when you segment the money in your savings > acount, and then want to spend out of cash/checking etc. Is a pretty common > thing that people want out of Gnucash. > > After trying it, I'll also be in a position to suggest any feature changes > that would make it easier. Hinted already by others is the feature of > "formula" based data entry - doing data entry a bit like a spreadsheet, where > simple equations can be used often based on the values present in other > accounts/transactions... I'll leave that for now and explore it in my next > big discussion with you all! > > Thanks again - greatly appreciate your time, > Matt > > > Original message > From: Adrien Monteleone <mailto:adrien.montele...@gmail.com>> > Date: 27/1/18 18:15 (GMT+10:00) > To: GNU Cash User <mailto:gnucash-user@gnucash.org>> > Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] > > That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks! > > > Regards, > Adrien > > > On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell > <mailto:tommy.truss...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split my comment > > into a different thread. I'm not responding to any particular comment, and > > this isn't quite germane to budgeting. > > > > But I want to clear up a few misunderstandings I'm seeing folks express > > about reconciling with sub-accounts. Subaccounts work very well, but they > > do take a little maintenance. > > > > WHEN TO USE SUBACCOUNTS > > > > You can use subaccounts for several purposes, including budgeting, holding > > onto money that isn't "yours" (a bond you're holding from a contractor for > > successful completion of a project, for instance), identifying earmarked > > funds, OR (as in the example below) simply stopping yourself from spending > > down the account more than you'd like. > > > > (If folks have additional suggested uses for subaccounts, bring em on!) > > > > EXAMPLE: MINIMUM BALANCE VIEW > > > > Here's a real-world (well it's real in MY world) example -- avoiding > > "minimum balance" fees. The bank name has been changed to protect the > > bookkeeper. ;-) > > > > I have a checking account at BigBank. > > > > Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking > > > > The terms on that bank account say it doesn't cost me anything UNLESS the > > balance drops below
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
Nice! It seems like we are getting somewhere. I am convinced that the process we think of budgeting where we are saving up for something is really a case of segmenting money within a sub-account. And it looks like Gnucash is already happy with this kind of situation - with the include sub-accounts in the recociliation window. I'm going to try this out over the next week or so and then try to contriubute to the Tutorial and concepts guide on it. It can get pretty complicated (for beginners) when you segment the money in your savings acount, and then want to spend out of cash/checking etc. Is a pretty common thing that people want out of Gnucash. After trying it, I'll also be in a position to suggest any feature changes that would make it easier. Hinted already by others is the feature of "formula" based data entry - doing data entry a bit like a spreadsheet, where simple equations can be used often based on the values present in other accounts/transactions... I'll leave that for now and explore it in my next big discussion with you all! Thanks again - greatly appreciate your time, Matt Original message From: Adrien Monteleone Date: 27/1/18 18:15 (GMT+10:00) To: GNU Cash User Subject: Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets] That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks! Regards, Adrien > On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell wrote: > > I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split my comment > into a different thread. I'm not responding to any particular comment, and > this isn't quite germane to budgeting. > > But I want to clear up a few misunderstandings I'm seeing folks express > about reconciling with sub-accounts. Subaccounts work very well, but they > do take a little maintenance. > > WHEN TO USE SUBACCOUNTS > > You can use subaccounts for several purposes, including budgeting, holding > onto money that isn't "yours" (a bond you're holding from a contractor for > successful completion of a project, for instance), identifying earmarked > funds, OR (as in the example below) simply stopping yourself from spending > down the account more than you'd like. > > (If folks have additional suggested uses for subaccounts, bring em on!) > > EXAMPLE: MINIMUM BALANCE VIEW > > Here's a real-world (well it's real in MY world) example -- avoiding > "minimum balance" fees. The bank name has been changed to protect the > bookkeeper. ;-) > > I have a checking account at BigBank. > > Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking > > The terms on that bank account say it doesn't cost me anything UNLESS the > balance drops below $2500, at which point I have to pay $8.50/month. (There > are some other miscellaneous fees, all higher when the balance goes low.) > > SO to help avoid the $8.50/month expense, I created a sub account: > > Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance > > Then I created a transaction dated 2/15/2015, transferring $2500 from the > account to its subaccount: > > (This is a representation of the BigBank Checking two-line auto-split > register. Items in the right column are "cr" and items in the left column > are "dr".) > > 2/15/2015 min Minimum Balance 2500.00cr >Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance $2500.00dr >Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking $2500.00cr > > When I reconciled my account the first time after creating this > transaction, I made sure to tick the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox on the > Reconcile Information dialog. I (as always) verified the ENDING balance > information exactly as it was shown on the bank's statement. > > Also that first time I reconciled, I noticed TWO items to clear that > weren't actually on the bank statement -- $2500 in the funds in side and > $2500 in the funds out side of the reconcile window. I marked them BOTH as > "cleared." > > From now on, I notice a few things have changed from before -- > > o - My default balance when I reconcile AND the running balance in the > BigBank Checking register will always show $2500 lower than I actually > have. > > o - When I reconcile I always have to remember to override the default and > enter the ENDING balance as it is shown on BigBank's statement. > > o - When I reconcile the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox is ticked and it > needs to stay ticked. (It seems to "remember" the setting from session to > session, as you would hope.) > > o - I also notice when I'm reconciling that when I "jump" to a transaction > by double-clicking on an item in the funds in / funds out lists, the > tra
Re: Subaccounts [WAS Re: Future allocated money vs Budgets]
That’s an interesting use of future dated transactions. Thanks! Regards, Adrien > On Jan 26, 2018, at 5:21 PM, Tommy Trussell wrote: > > I was following the budget discussion, and I decided to split my comment > into a different thread. I'm not responding to any particular comment, and > this isn't quite germane to budgeting. > > But I want to clear up a few misunderstandings I'm seeing folks express > about reconciling with sub-accounts. Subaccounts work very well, but they > do take a little maintenance. > > WHEN TO USE SUBACCOUNTS > > You can use subaccounts for several purposes, including budgeting, holding > onto money that isn't "yours" (a bond you're holding from a contractor for > successful completion of a project, for instance), identifying earmarked > funds, OR (as in the example below) simply stopping yourself from spending > down the account more than you'd like. > > (If folks have additional suggested uses for subaccounts, bring em on!) > > EXAMPLE: MINIMUM BALANCE VIEW > > Here's a real-world (well it's real in MY world) example -- avoiding > "minimum balance" fees. The bank name has been changed to protect the > bookkeeper. ;-) > > I have a checking account at BigBank. > > Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking > > The terms on that bank account say it doesn't cost me anything UNLESS the > balance drops below $2500, at which point I have to pay $8.50/month. (There > are some other miscellaneous fees, all higher when the balance goes low.) > > SO to help avoid the $8.50/month expense, I created a sub account: > > Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance > > Then I created a transaction dated 2/15/2015, transferring $2500 from the > account to its subaccount: > > (This is a representation of the BigBank Checking two-line auto-split > register. Items in the right column are "cr" and items in the left column > are "dr".) > > 2/15/2015 min Minimum Balance 2500.00cr >Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking:Minimum Balance $2500.00dr >Assets:Current Assets:BigBank Checking $2500.00cr > > When I reconciled my account the first time after creating this > transaction, I made sure to tick the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox on the > Reconcile Information dialog. I (as always) verified the ENDING balance > information exactly as it was shown on the bank's statement. > > Also that first time I reconciled, I noticed TWO items to clear that > weren't actually on the bank statement -- $2500 in the funds in side and > $2500 in the funds out side of the reconcile window. I marked them BOTH as > "cleared." > > From now on, I notice a few things have changed from before -- > > o - My default balance when I reconcile AND the running balance in the > BigBank Checking register will always show $2500 lower than I actually > have. > > o - When I reconcile I always have to remember to override the default and > enter the ENDING balance as it is shown on BigBank's statement. > > o - When I reconcile the "Include Subaccounts" checkbox is ticked and it > needs to stay ticked. (It seems to "remember" the setting from session to > session, as you would hope.) > > o - I also notice when I'm reconciling that when I "jump" to a transaction > by double-clicking on an item in the funds in / funds out lists, the > transaction opens into a different kind of "general ledger" style register > that includes ALL transactions in the account and subaccounts. It exactly > resembles the kind of register that appears when you search for > transactions. It has a "plus" (+) mark in its tab and looks different from > the "ordinary" register. > > > Obviously at any time I can "overspend" and the primary account balance > will go negative, with either dire or negligible real-world repercussions. > But if I ignore the red (negative) balance numbers and keep the balances in > the red, I've eliminated the reason for having the subaccount in the first > place. > > I can raise or lower the minumum balance at any time by creating another > transaction between the account and subaccount. > > > - >> 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 > 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 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.