mirror of
https://github.com/Gnucash/gnucash.git
synced 2024-11-26 02:40:43 -06:00
83 lines
3.0 KiB
Plaintext
83 lines
3.0 KiB
Plaintext
/** \page rawnotes Miscellaneous Notes.
|
|
|
|
\section stock splits & cost basis
|
|
|
|
OK, here's a question for accountants of various different countries:
|
|
What's the cost basis for a stock split? Does the rest of the world do
|
|
it the way the US does it?
|
|
|
|
For example:
|
|
In Jan 1995 buy 100s stock for $10 per share
|
|
In July 1997 split 2-for-1
|
|
In August 1997, sell 120s stock for $30 per share
|
|
|
|
I believe the following is correct for the united states:
|
|
My cost basis is $5 per share, and my gains of $25x120 are taxable
|
|
as long-term cap gains.
|
|
|
|
--- would there ever be a case where the cost basis should be $10 for
|
|
the first 100 shares, and $0 for the remainder?
|
|
--- would there ever be a case where the gains would be considered
|
|
'short-term' for some portion of the total?
|
|
|
|
\subsection Spin off stocks.
|
|
|
|
OK, that was easy. Here's the harder one: a spin-off:
|
|
|
|
For example:
|
|
In Jan 1995 buy 100s of stock A for $10 per share
|
|
In July 1997 receive 1s of stock B for every 20s of stock A.
|
|
Stock B is new, and will trade under its own new ticker symbol
|
|
as of the date of this split.
|
|
|
|
-- What's my cost basis for B? is it $0.000 ?
|
|
-- What's my cost basis for A? is it $10, or something else?
|
|
-- Are these questions supposed to be answered by company A,
|
|
or do I just 'guess'?
|
|
|
|
Note there is still an invariant:
|
|
(old price of A) * 20s == (new price of A) *20s + (price of B) * 1s
|
|
|
|
\section Depreciation, Sinking Funds ...
|
|
|
|
On 21 Apr 2000 20:39:43 CDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
|
|
John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org> said:
|
|
\verbatim
|
|
> Lauren writes:
|
|
> > I'm not familliar with sinking funds, but what makes them a bit different
|
|
> > from a book entry like depreciation (also somewhat virtual) is that they
|
|
> > are happening with real accounts that need to be reconciled against an
|
|
> > outside statement.
|
|
>
|
|
> I don't see that. While the purpose of a sinking fund may be to pay off
|
|
> some bonds in ten years and there may even exist a legal obligation to have
|
|
> it, the funds being transferred to it now have nothing to do with any
|
|
> outside statement.
|
|
>
|
|
> A sinking fund to pay off some bonds is pretty much the same thing as
|
|
> saving up to pay off the balloon payment on the morgage.
|
|
>
|
|
> When you transfer funds to your "Savings Goal" or your "Sinking Fund" you
|
|
> are transferring funds from one asset account to another. Just credit
|
|
> 'Cash' and debit 'Savings Goals:Honeymoon'.
|
|
\endvarbatim
|
|
|
|
The problem with proceeding to credit Cash and debit "Savings Goal" is
|
|
that this invalidates any reconciliation of Cash. I'd be game to do
|
|
this if I credited not Cash, but rather "Cash:Goals", a subaccount of
|
|
Cash that can be ignored when it needs to be,
|
|
|
|
For different purposes, I will want both to consider and ignore these
|
|
"funds reservations."
|
|
|
|
- When making up a <b>budget</b>, I care about what funds are reserved for
|
|
particular purposes.
|
|
|
|
- When trying to figure out if my bank account is going to be
|
|
overdrawn, "reserved" funds are <b>irrelevant.</b>
|
|
|
|
I would thus suggest that the "gentle user" use the budget system to
|
|
manage this rather than having these be "true" transactions in the
|
|
ledger.
|
|
*/
|