What happened to my balance column?
in [Quicken]
|
From: Don on 22 Feb 2010 16:58 Hey R.C., Thanks for the feedback. I don't know that you are necessarily missing anything there, and I am sure you are spot on in your assesments. However I do know, prior to updating to R7, there was a balance column to the right that showed my balance after each transaction. After updating to R7, that column is now gone, with only the ending balance being show at the bottom right. So in effect, from this update, a whole column of information I have been used to seeing, for years really, is now gone with release R7 for Quicken 2010. Granted that may have just been more information than I really needed, but it was always there and I was used to seeing it there. Just change I was not expecting and found surprising, thought maybe I had done something wrong like inadvertently clicking to hide that data. Not sure I understand their reasoning for removing this with the R7 udpate. -- Don "R. C. White" <rc(a)grandecom.net> wrote in message news:PKKdnWGBur2eYR_WnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d(a)posted.grandecom... > HI, Don. > > Seems to me that the time sequence is the only one that would produce a > balance that means anything. > > I may choose to sort by Payee, for example, but why would I want to see my > "balance" after all my checks to AAA but before all my checks to USAA? > Any interim "balance" would be pure arithmetic trivia, not meaningful in > any way that I can see. > > Similarly, sorting by Memo or Category or Tab would produce meaningless > numbers in the "balance" column. There IS an "Ending Balance" below the > final line of the Register. That should always be correct, no matter > which sorting sequence is used. There are valid reasons to sort > transactions in other orders, of course; that is what we do in Reports, > not in Registers. > > The only Register sequence that seems meaningful to me is one based on > chronology. Even the Date column shows a temporarily "wrong" balance when > a deposit gets credited before or after a check that clears on the same > day. The "Num" column would approximate - or supplement - the Date > sequence IF all transactions were numbered. If all checks were numbered > and written in order. BUT...what about deposits? What about credit and > debit memos and monthly interest credits or bank charges? Those are not > numbered. They would impact the "balance" in some sequence that would be > hard to predict - and the "balance" produced would still be meaningless. > > I don't recall any different behavior pre-Q2010. > > What am I missing here? > > RC > -- > R. C. White, CPA > San Marcos, TX > (Retired. No longer licensed to practice public accounting.) > rc(a)grandecom.net > Microsoft Windows MVP > (Using Quicken Deluxe 2010 and Windows Live Mail in Win7 x64) > > "Don" <burnettedclothes(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:KdmdnUCaz9AlB-PWnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> Hey gang, >> >> This morning I get notified there is an update to Quicken Deluxe 2010, >> R7, so I went ahead and let it download and install the update. >> >> Now, in my two checking accounts , I no longer have a balance field at >> the far right, showing my balance after each transaction. >> I have an online and ending balance listed at the bottom right as usual, >> just no balance column any longer just to the right of payment and >> deposit columns. >> >> I have looked under preferences, can't seem to find where and how to get >> this back? >> >> Any suggestions would be appreciated, I am sure it is something simple I >> am overlooking... >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Don >
From: TomYoung on 22 Feb 2010 17:51 On Feb 22, 1:50 pm, "R. C. White" <r...(a)grandecom.net> wrote: > HI, Don. > > Seems to me that the time sequence is the only one that would produce a > balance that means anything. > > I may choose to sort by Payee, for example, but why would I want to see my > "balance" after all my checks to AAA but before all my checks to USAA? Any > interim "balance" would be pure arithmetic trivia, not meaningful in any way > that I can see. > > Similarly, sorting by Memo or Category or Tab would produce meaningless > numbers in the "balance" column. There IS an "Ending Balance" below the > final line of the Register. That should always be correct, no matter which > sorting sequence is used. There are valid reasons to sort transactions in > other orders, of course; that is what we do in Reports, not in Registers. > > The only Register sequence that seems meaningful to me is one based on > chronology. Even the Date column shows a temporarily "wrong" balance when a > deposit gets credited before or after a check that clears on the same day.. > The "Num" column would approximate - or supplement - the Date sequence IF > all transactions were numbered. If all checks were numbered and written in > order. BUT...what about deposits? What about credit and debit memos and > monthly interest credits or bank charges? Those are not numbered. They > would impact the "balance" in some sequence that would be hard to predict - > and the "balance" produced would still be meaningless. > > I don't recall any different behavior pre-Q2010. > > What am I missing here? > Hi: R.C. Actually, that was my very first thought and I almost dashed off a reply along the same lines until I realized that a sort by cleared status, with balances shown, does provide useful information. If you sort by cleared status the sort order is "R", "c" then " ", and then by date. The register also provides a visual clue as to the separation of "today's date and prior" vs. "after today's date." Having balance figures gives you "today's" balance as well as an easy calculation of checks outstanding (in my case, I don't have any deposits in transit or other un-cleared transactions). That information can be useful if you're really managing your cash tightly. But, the bigger issue is that it's fairly obvious that Quicken wasn't thinking along the lines of "a balance column for a sort by cleared status doesn't mean anything, so we'll eliminate it." It's just another goof. Tom Young
From: Andrew on 22 Feb 2010 19:54 TomYoung wrote: > > If you sort by cleared status the sort order is "R", "c" then " ", and > then by date. The register also provides a visual clue as to the > separation of "today's date and prior" vs. "after today's date." > Having balance figures gives you "today's" balance as well as an easy > calculation of checks outstanding (in my case, I don't have any > deposits in transit or other un-cleared transactions). That > information can be useful if you're really managing your cash > tightly. > I sort REGISTER sorts quite often by different columns for good reasons - not in REPORTS. One example is that at the end of the month when I have my bank statement returned, there's a section of check included in numerical order with amounts at the end. I therefore sort by CHECK NUMBER and those that have cleared I move my PAPER copies (modern day carbon copies) into my 'month' file. If I wish to find a 'large' denomination deposit without remembering what the value was or what PAYEE I might have used, I sort by DEPOSIT column. Granted I don't use the ending balance in these register sorts, but I am not sure I agree with the earlier statement "There are valid reasons to sort transactions in other orders, of course; that is what we do in Reports, not in Registers." Why run a report to sort, when the information is readily available by clicking a column heading in the register? That's what it's there for! Or maybe I missed R.C.'s point about only sorting in REPORTS? -- ------------------------------------------------------------- Regards - - Andrew
From: TomYoung on 22 Feb 2010 21:30 On Feb 22, 4:54 pm, "Andrew" <and...(a)jkl.com> wrote: > TomYoung wrote: > > > If you sort by cleared status the sort order is "R", "c" then " ", and > > then by date. The register also provides a visual clue as to the > > separation of "today's date and prior" vs. "after today's date." > > Having balance figures gives you "today's" balance as well as an easy > > calculation of checks outstanding (in my case, I don't have any > > deposits in transit or other un-cleared transactions). That > > information can be useful if you're really managing your cash > > tightly. > > I sort REGISTER sorts quite often by different columns for good reasons - > not in REPORTS. One example is that at the end of the month when I have my > bank statement returned, there's a section of check included in numerical > order with amounts at the end. I therefore sort by CHECK NUMBER and those > that have cleared I move my PAPER copies (modern day carbon copies) into my > 'month' file. > > If I wish to find a 'large' denomination deposit without remembering what > the value was or what PAYEE I might have used, I sort by DEPOSIT column. > Granted I don't use the ending balance in these register sorts, but I am not > sure I agree with the earlier statement "There are valid reasons to sort > transactions in > other orders, of course; that is what we do in Reports, not in Registers." > Why run a report to sort, when the information is readily available by > clicking a column heading in the register? That's what it's there for! > > Or maybe I missed R.C.'s point about only sorting in REPORTS? Yes, I think you did miss his point. The OP was bemoaning the disappearance of the balance column when he sorted by "cleared" status. R.C. pointed out that any sort other than by date makes the balance column pretty meaningless, "correct" only in a mathematical sense, so why be upset if the balance doesn't appear? Do a sort of your register by "Amount" and you'll see what he's getting at. That sort starts with the largest deposit and works down to the smallest deposit, then switches over to the smallest payment and works up to the largest. Every number in the balance column for this report is meaningless, except for the very last balance figure. Tom Young
From: Don on 22 Feb 2010 21:35
"TomYoung" <sombodee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0a62972d-69fb-4844-b0d6-9c642d1bbd09(a)u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 22, 4:54 pm, "Andrew" <and...(a)jkl.com> wrote: >> TomYoung wrote: >> >> > If you sort by cleared status the sort order is "R", "c" then " ", and >> > then by date. The register also provides a visual clue as to the >> > separation of "today's date and prior" vs. "after today's date." >> > Having balance figures gives you "today's" balance as well as an easy >> > calculation of checks outstanding (in my case, I don't have any >> > deposits in transit or other un-cleared transactions). That >> > information can be useful if you're really managing your cash >> > tightly. >> >> I sort REGISTER sorts quite often by different columns for good reasons - >> not in REPORTS. One example is that at the end of the month when I have >> my >> bank statement returned, there's a section of check included in numerical >> order with amounts at the end. I therefore sort by CHECK NUMBER and >> those >> that have cleared I move my PAPER copies (modern day carbon copies) into >> my >> 'month' file. >> >> If I wish to find a 'large' denomination deposit without remembering what >> the value was or what PAYEE I might have used, I sort by DEPOSIT column. >> Granted I don't use the ending balance in these register sorts, but I am >> not >> sure I agree with the earlier statement "There are valid reasons to sort >> transactions in >> other orders, of course; that is what we do in Reports, not in >> Registers." >> Why run a report to sort, when the information is readily available by >> clicking a column heading in the register? That's what it's there for! >> >> Or maybe I missed R.C.'s point about only sorting in REPORTS? > > Yes, I think you did miss his point. The OP was bemoaning the > disappearance of the balance column when he sorted by "cleared" > status. R.C. pointed out that any sort other than by date makes the > balance column pretty meaningless, "correct" only in a mathematical > sense, so why be upset if the balance doesn't appear? > > Do a sort of your register by "Amount" and you'll see what he's > getting at. That sort starts with the largest deposit and works down > to the smallest deposit, then switches over to the smallest payment > and works up to the largest. Every number in the balance column for > this report is meaningless, except for the very last balance figure. > > Tom Young > > > Speaking just for myself, my sort by cleared status sorts all cleared by date, with only the uncleared not necessarily being by date - of course once they clear, then they get sorted by the appropriate date. Perhaps it is meaningless, but I myself found it useful rather than just having one ending balance at the bottom... and it was there, in Quicken 2010 prior to R7, and many Quicken versions preceding it. Now it is not. -- Don |