Double-counting income?
in [Quicken]
|
Prev: How to "link" two transactions
Next: Missing Security
From: Gary on 14 May 2010 08:45 On 2010-05-14 08:05:11 -0400, "Andrew" <andrew(a)jkl.com> said: > John Pollard wrote: ..... > > I guess we'll never know if we helped the OP. My apologies. You have helped me, and I neglected to resdpond. How rude!
From: Andrew on 14 May 2010 19:43 Gary wrote: > On 2010-05-14 08:05:11 -0400, "Andrew" <andrew(a)jkl.com> said: > >> John Pollard wrote: ..... >> >> I guess we'll never know if we helped the OP. > > My apologies. You have helped me, and I neglected to resdpond. How > rude! No, not rude - there were a variety of replies, and I was hoping one or more helped. When I asked the original question, I was inferring that perhaps the money flow out of your investment account might not have been via a transfer. That was the gist of Keith's reply. That the original income has a category assigned but movement of the money to another account should have been via a 'transfer' (ie: an account name in the field, not a category). Thus, the income really would have been categorized ONCE despite it being moved. Thus, not 'double counted' And John explained how to avoid seeing these 'internal' transfers in his append. Was that indeed what was happening? -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Regards - - Andrew
From: Gary on 14 May 2010 21:01
On 2010-05-14 19:43:14 -0400, "Andrew" <andrew(a)jkl.com> said: > Gary wrote: >> On 2010-05-14 08:05:11 -0400, "Andrew" <andrew(a)jkl.com> said: >> >>> John Pollard wrote: ..... >>> >>> I guess we'll never know if we helped the OP. >> >> My apologies. You have helped me, and I neglected to resdpond. How >> rude! > > No, not rude - there were a variety of replies, and I was hoping one or more > helped. When I asked the original question, I was inferring that perhaps > the money flow out of your investment account might not have been via a > transfer. That was the gist of Keith's reply. That the original income has > a category assigned but movement of the money to another account should have > been via a 'transfer' (ie: an account name in the field, not a category). > > Thus, the income really would have been categorized ONCE despite it being > moved. Thus, not 'double counted' > > And John explained how to avoid seeing these 'internal' transfers in his > append. > > Was that indeed what was happening? Perhaps you didn't understand my remark. I felt it was rude of me to not reply to e veryone trying to help me. |