MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

45 posts
Re: MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

jamie
New MMEX User

Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:06 am
I am firmly on lotsofjunk's side on this one and would like to see this change in the next official version.
Re: MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

lotsofjunk
New MMEX User

Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:59 pm
GregChapman wrote: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
Attachments
M$-All.JPG
(37.65 KiB) Downloaded 1020 times
M$-Un.JPG
(40.37 KiB) Downloaded 1020 times
Re: MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

GregChapman
Super MMEX User

Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:24 am
Location: Norfolk Broads, UK
lotsofjunk wrote: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?
Greg Chapman
Re: MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

jamie
New MMEX User

Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:06 am
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.
Re: MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

GregChapman
Super MMEX User

Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:24 am
Location: Norfolk Broads, UK
jamie wrote: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!
Greg Chapman
Re: MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

lotsofjunk
New MMEX User

Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:59 pm
GregChapman wrote: 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
Attachments
View Unreconciled.JPG
(15.64 KiB) Downloaded 1005 times
Re: MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

GregChapman
Super MMEX User

Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:24 am
Location: Norfolk Broads, UK
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.
Greg Chapman
Re: MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

lotsofjunk
New MMEX User

Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:59 pm
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?
Attachments
Capture1.JPG
(12.88 KiB) Downloaded 1000 times
Capture.JPG
(14.84 KiB) Downloaded 1000 times
Re: MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled

GregChapman
Super MMEX User

Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:24 am
Location: Norfolk Broads, UK
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".
Greg Chapman
Re: MoneyManagerEX_SVN-3085 - Major mistake in Un-Reconciled
User avatar
stef145g
MMEX Developer

Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:40 pm
Location: Canberra, Australia
lotsofjunk wrote: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?
Stefano (userName stef145g) wrote: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.

lotsofjunk wrote: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?
Regards: Stefano
Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests