MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

[stef145g]

1. You have a balance
2. When you have a withdrawl on the ledger line : Balance - with drawl = new balance.

Unfortunately I am attacking this issue as a programmer, and I agree with your definition, of which other views did not conform to this definition.

Before I made the changes, others also brought to our attention that the balances were incorrect in some views.
For the un-reconciled view, my issue was raised that the report is either:
1. A ledger of un-reconciled transactions.
2. A general ledger with a view showing the unreconciled transactions.

I chose option 2, because to me, I concidered it to be logical, especially with the introduction of the transaction filter.

Not being a financial person, I don't understand the reason for showing unreconciled balances as a ledger as you require.

[lotsofjunk]

Thanks for the answer.

But I still recomend that the current unreconciled view is not working the way a single line ledger should work and it should be corrected or deleted.

It is much worse to display wrong information than not display information.

[GregChapman]

I undersand your position, but it is incorrect for a ledger!

I don't think there is any difference between us when it comes to ledgers. The difference is in what the filter is doing.

In 1970s terms, your concept of MMEx's ledger filter is that of using Tipp-Ex to obliterate an entry AND all following balance entries so you can re-calculate and re-write a corrected ledger, but then use the magic of computers to remove all that Tipp-Ex. You see MMEx's filter as a ledger re-write.

Forget Tipp-Ex. Think Highlighter Pen.

The ledger is NOT re-written and re-calculated. All the original entries remain in place - so no balance will change - it's just that it temporarily only shows highlighted entries.

Stick with 0.9.8.0 by all means, if it works for you, but if you do need to update you'll have to come to terms with MMEx's "highlighter" and use the Report facility to get an equivalent of the display you seek.

[lotsofjunk]

In 2012 terms, you answer is British BS.

Filters or highlighters you can't justify displaying wrong calculations.

.0.9.8.0, worked correclty and I don't need some BS about highlighters!

1. Credit Entry : Balance + Credit = New Balance
2. Debit Entry : Balance - Debit = New Balance

If you highlight what you have done in .0.9.9.0 from the images I have attached, you would notice that the math does not add up.

.0.9.8.0. for Me!

[lotsofjunk]

Once again thanks for you answer, Here is the short answer and I have attached a pdf document with the long answer and an example.

1. The view all - is a check book ledger sorted in the order that the transaction started or entered into the ledger.
2. The view un-reconcilded is a view in the order that the bank cleared the tranaction (reconciled) and this view has always matched by statement line for line.

[stef145g]

Unfortunately I am attacking this issue as a programmer

and as such I need to understand the problem before I can formulate a solution, This is the reason for getting others to test the program and provide feedback to ensure that we get it right.

Here is the short answer and I have attached a pdf document with the long answer and an example.

Thanks for taking the time to explain the concept, as now I understand the reason for it, and makes sense.

From what you are saying, the View Un-Reconciled, should recalculate all the balances for this view. Should this be done for all these other views: View Reconciled, View All Except Reconciled, View Void, Flagged and Duplicates.

The view Transactions items should keep the balances of the general ledger intact which it was not doing.

When it comes to the transaction filter usage, I would prefer not to have the balances recalculated when different statuses are required. (This would also provide a solution to my initial issue.)

[lotsofjunk]

Thanks stef145g, Really appreciate you efforts. Just for info, I have worked with the RAAF Magpies in the past and really impressed with Australia.

I beleive that the View all (primary ledger) should allways be in the orginal entry form. It needs to be a history of transactions and an accurate running balance. All verions of Money Manager EX verisons that I have used has done this exceptionly well.

I only use the View all and view Un-Reconciled, so I really can't speak for the other views.

From what you are saying, the View Un-Reconciled, should recalculate all the balances for this view.

My opnion, but I am pretty positive that to display in a ledger format, there is no other option, but to recalculate balances.

Just a question, but are the concerns with the balances not matching because people are confusing balance (view all - ledger) with re-conciled balance (View Un-Reconciled)?

[Nikolay]

My suggestion to add a button before an account name

ABC Bank

If the button pressed (or became in focus) some info screen appears.

A line with balances info that is under transactions list may be removed.

[stef145g]

I have built the .exe file for Windows at revision 3107 for testing.
Available for downloading on Sourceforge.net: https://sourceforge.net/projects/moneym ... _unstable/

This changes the way that the balances are calculated for:
1. View Reconciled
2. View UnReconciled
3. View All except Reconciled.

Note: This is only the EXE file and should replace the existing file in the SVN-3085 installation.

[GregChapman]

Mmm! Having read the ledger.pdf file, I'm not sure that it explains anything, except to re-state the point that a bank's records will be different from your own, which we all realise.

It comes down to the basic concept behind the program.

It doesn't strike me as odd that MMEx holds MY ledger and when reconciling entries with someone else's records there will be differences in the balance shown for any particular date.

It seems that earlier versions of MMEx had the assumption that MMEx was trying to keep a duplicate of the BANK's ledger. If that's the case then I recognise there might be a need to do recalculations when hiding certain transactions.

However, I assume that like the paper records I held before I computerised my own accounts, my accounting program was recording MY ledger - not someone else's. When I mark transactions as reconciled it is only the transaction that I'm interested in NOT the balance, as I fully recognise that the bank's balance cannot be expected to keep in step with MY records. The balance column is redundant and I would argue that there's no point in showing it at all - then this issue goes away.

As I said before, if you want an indication of the running total of transactions outstanding at the bank, you turn to MMEx's reports facility. What else is relevant if MMEx is recording MY ledgers?

[jamie]

I am firmly on lotsofjunk's side on this one and would like to see this change in the next official version.

[lotsofjunk]

Mmm! Having read the ledger.pdf file, I'm not sure that it explains anything, except to re-state the point that a bank's records will be different from your own, which we all realise.
It comes down to the basic concept behind the program.
It doesn't strike me as odd that MMEx holds MY ledger and when reconciling entries with someone else's records there will be differences in the balance shown for any particular date.
It seems that earlier versions of MMEx had the assumption that MMEx was trying to keep a duplicate of the BANK's ledger. If that's the case then I recognise there might be a need to do recalculations when hiding certain transactions.

Screen shot of other programs that work the way .0.9.8.0 does. Not just my idea. Recommend to go back to .0.9.8.0

[GregChapman]

Screen shot of other programs that work the way .0.9.8.0 does. Not just my idea.

I understand that you want a recalculation when hiding certain entries. I understand that others may do it that way. But you don't explain the advantage when hiding certain transactions. So far the justification amounts to - it's what I'm used to.

I don't understand is what this recalculated balance represents or how it helps in reconciliation. It isn't the balance according to my ledger or that of the other. It doesn't help in spotting reversions, where, for example, one ledger shows an item at £45 and the other £54. (The £9 difference will show up in the balance column whether recalculated or not. Back in the 1960s when I worked in a bank that still used hand-written ledgers it was a favourite party piece of senior staff to check whether a difference was divisible by nine - a sure indication that an error was a reversion!)

When I attempt to reconcile two sets of debits and credits all I am interested in is whether the items, or maybe combinations of certain debits and credits, match in both sets of records. They may show different dates for the various transactions and certainly different intermediate balances if they have been posted in a different order. The balance at the various dates of the unreconciled items is utterly meaningless.

I'm clearly missing something. What meaning or benefit does a recalculated balance offer?

[jamie]

It allows MMEX's balance column to follow the bank's balance column when "Viewing All except Reconciled Transactions", without having to change transaction dates to match the bank's date. If a check clears early, I want to know the impact of that check on the MMEX balance column without having to change the date of the check transaction in MMEX. The account balance could potentially go negative due to a check clearing early and the order of deposits and withdraws that follow. Recalculation of the bank balance would allow you to see that in the MMEX register. In practice, this will never happen to me because I always keep a buffer in the account.

[GregChapman]

If a check clears early

Ah!

I always post payments (cheques, direct debits, etc) into MMEx on the date of issue or when due. Payments can never "clear early". I also enter what I expect to receive in order to gauge my future balance. Normally, I have, at most, a couple of receipts per month.

I check on-line at my bank regularly to confirm that my records match the bank's. I will use a filtered view in MMEx to exclude those items marked as reconciled on previous visits to the bank's web site. Frequently, the transactions that remain in view will show in a different order (direct debits and standing orders are often delayed at weekends) but it is simple enough to mark matching transactions reconciled. In some cases, particularly direct debits and receipts, I may need to edit the amount or date to reflect the bank's records. After I make any edit, I hit the "R" key and the transactions disappears from view. At no time in this reconciliation process do I have any need to look at the balance. It is a complete irrelevance.

I could not foresee the possibility of "checks clearing early". It cannot happen under my regime. This is why I am unconcerned about the balance column. It's not that I have an objection to MMEx reverting to its old way of doing things. I just couldn't see a reason for needing that change.

Being financially relaxed comes from anticipating bills, not allowing a bank to take it from you unexpectedly!

[lotsofjunk]

The balance at the various dates of the unreconciled items is utterly meaningless.

What meaning or benefit does a recalculated balance offer?

I went through 13 pages of feature request and could not find any request or reference to change the the un-reconciled view. Jamie made a very good recomedation to show the previous balance on the first line of the ledger. I totally agree with his recomedation.

I assume that now you concur that the calculation and ledger un-reconcile view is incorrect and now you are requesting justification for the view.

The balance at the various dates of the unreconciled items is not utterly meaningless. It prevents overdarfts. That is what a single line ledger is basicaly for. One that shows actualy bank balances is much more accurate than one that does not.

No matter how you want to justify your ridiculus view about balance, the attachment really says it all. Does 777.25 - 52.52 = 41.07? NO

[GregChapman]

Hi lotsofjunk,

You're a little behind in the discussion and repeating yourself. (More of the "it's what I'm used to why change" stuff.) However, Jamie is answering my questions and giving explanations

I assume that now you concur that the calculation and ledger un-reconcile view is incorrect

Not at all - for the reasons given in my post made while I guess you were composing yours. However, thanks to Jamie's post I perhaps begin to see where you are coming from.

The balance at the various dates of the unreconciled items is not utterly meaningless. It prevents overdarfts. That is what a single line ledger is basicaly for. One that shows actualy bank balances is much more accurate than one that does not.

In saying that you are not seeing where I am coming from. Read my previous post.

No matter how you want to justify your ridiculus view about balance, the attachment really says it all. Does 777.25 - 52.52 = 41.07? NO

But as I pointed out right at the start of this debate, the extract you show is not a showing a calculation as it did under earlier versions of MMEx. In the current version of MMEX it shows an extract of your ledger with many records missing. There is no arithmetic taking place. There may be an argument for reverting to the old way, but you're not presenting that argument. Jamie is.

[lotsofjunk]

Here is where I am really confused, but from your replies it is obvious.

How is it that I am a new user, been using since 2009, and you've been using 6 months and your are a super MMEX User?

Question of the day?

[GregChapman]

Don't pay it too much attention. I think it's just a title awarded by virtue of my post count. I don't think it means I'm any better respected by the management than you.


EDIT:
Just checked the membership list. Seems the critical point between New and Super is 20 posts.

Welcome lotsofjunk, to the world of the Super MMEx User

EDIT #2:
And it seems that somewhere between my 63 posts and 116, you get awarded the title "MMEx Developer".

[stef145g]

How is it that I am a new user, been using since 2009, and you've been using 6 months and your are a super MMEX User?

Question of the day?

Answer:

Any user who has made 20 or more posts, the forum software automatically reclassified the New User as a Super User.

A good observation, but when it comes to this, I was classified as a super user for a long time when I was actually a developer. As this is a manual change, given the permissions to do so, I have recently corrected this oversite.

I went through 13 pages of feature request and could not find any request or reference to change the the un-reconciled view. Jamie made a very good recomedation to show the previous balance on the first line of the ledger. I totally agree with his recomedation.

This was my interpretation of the software when I formulated the new method of working out balances, as this method corrected the balances for a lot of views. This also affected, and changed the reconciled/unreconciled views, and for me this was not an issue, up until now.

I am following this discussion with great interest, in the hope of learning something. Thanks to all who add extra info to this discussion. Has anyone investigated the changes that I made to MMEX.
What is the verdict?

[jamie]

What is the verdict?

My preference is for the balance column to be recalculated in the filter views. The benefit is that the filtered balance more accurately forecasts the actual balance in the account (i.e. the bank's balance) without having to change the transaction dates of cleared transactions to match the bank's cleared date. I can keep the transaction dates as the bill due dates.

My standard way of working is to show unreconciled transactions only, to keep the transaction dates as the actual due dates, and to reconcile frequently. Under this scenario, recalculating the transaction balance is very beneficial and is my choice for the way to go.

[stef145g]

My preference is for the balance column to be recalculated in the filter views.

Which filter?

Note: The changes that I made are this:

• Using the Transacton Filter
  No recalculation of balances.

• Using the View Reconciled/Unreconciled/All except Reconciled.
  Balances are recalculated to new screen.

[jamie]

My preference is for the balance column to be recalculated in the filter views.

Which filter?

Note: The changes that I made are this:

• Using the Transacton Filter
  No recalculation of balances.

• Using the View Reconciled/Unreconciled/All except Reconciled.
  Balances are recalculated to new screen.

Exactly how you summarized it.

[GregChapman]

And that doesn't affect my way of working so I have no problems with it.

[stef145g]

I have been trying to get something clear in my own mind about the View Reconciled/Unreconciled views. To test the correctness of what I have done, I have created a spreadsheet and a database, then compared it with the results from mmex 0.9.8.0. With the un-reconciled view, I am getting different results.

Obviously not understanding the problem, can't explain why. I have also attached the files.
What am I doing wrong?