Hello Thomas,
On 2018.12.31 08:51, Thomas Baumgart wrote:
On Sonntag, 30. Dezember 2018 00:12:37 CET Jack Ostroff wrote:
I was looking through all transactions for a specific payee, and
found something that does not make any sense to me.
>
The payee is the US Treasury, which I use to track my federal tax
payments. The transaction was "Sell shares" from an investment
account. The transaction has three splits (looking into the xml
file).
- The first split is for the investment brokerage account for the
amount of the proceeds of the sale.
- The second split is for the category I use for brokerage fees.
- The third split is for the account of the equity being sold,
including the number of shares, price per share, total value of
sale, but also has that payee.
Could that be caused by some import operation?
Unfortunately, that transaction is from the end of 2017, so I don't
know for sure, but it was probably imported by libofx via direct
connect. However, I have very few transactions at all for that payee,
so it seems unlikely to have been from an incorrect match.
Why would there be any payee on that sort of transaction and how
could it have gotten there? Is there any way to remove it other
than manually simply removing it from the file?
Does it go away, if you edit the transaction and save it back to the
file (maybe make a little change and revert it again just to make
sure it was saved to the data engine). The only idea I have other
than fiddling with the XML file directly.
Unfortunately, no. I edited the transactions, saved the file, closed
KMM, and reopened, and the payee was still there. I also tried editing
the transaction in the brokerage account. No change there, either.
Oddly, I see the "Go to Payee" in the context menu for the transaction
in the investment account, but I do NOT see it if I try in the
brokerage account.
I suppose it is possible that I was using a self-compiled version at
the time that had some transient bug, and I have a vague memory of
other cases where I've ended up with a payee in an investment
transaction that shouldn't have had one. It still doesn't make any
sense though, but I do seem to find that sort of problem.
> At some point, I suppose
> I'll see if there are any other investment transactions with payees
in
> them, but that will probably take me a bit of perl programming to
hunt
> through the file.
>
> Thanks for any thoughts on this.
>
> Jack
--
Regards
Thomas Baumgart
https://www.signal.org/ Signal, the better WhatsApp
-------------------------------------------------------------
There is no way to happiness.
Happiness is the way ;) -- Thich Nhat Hanh
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack
