Prevent Single Mutual Fund accounts from holding stock

  • 0
  • 2
  • Idea
  • Updated 1 month ago
In looking into an answer to this question
https://getsatisfaction.com/quickencommunity/topics/drip-fees-where-how-to-record

I created a Single Mutual Fund account in a test file. Quicken lets me purchase a security that was defined as a stock in this account.

I suspect this is the root cause of the above user's problem, which is that there is no place to enter a fee for DRIP reinvestments because SMF accounts have no place to enter a commission for reinvestments and no way to enter a MiscExp transaction.

The other problem is that as soon as the account has a BoughtX for a stock in it, the SMF Yes/No radio buttons disappear.so I can no longer convert it to a regular Brokerage account. 

If I go to the Security List and change the security type from Stock to Mutual Fund, the SMF radio buttons reappear, so there is a way to get out of this predicament, unless this change would have bad side effects. You could presumably switch it back to a Stock after fixing the account. The radio buttons also reappear if I delete the purchase of the stock.

The disappearance of the SMF radio buttons when the security in the account is a Stock is certainly confusing. It would be better IMO if Quicken prevented me from Buying or Adding any non-mutual fund security in a SMF account in the first place, or, if Stock should be allowed in these accounts, the SMF radio buttons did not disappear.

This is QWin 2019 R16.14

Photo of Jim Harman

Jim Harman, SuperUser

  • 30,340 Points 20k badge 2x thumb

Posted 1 month ago

  • 0
  • 2
Photo of q.lurker

q.lurker, SuperUser

  • 275,880 Points 100k badge 2x thumb
I was surprised to see the same behavior in QW2017.  I had thought there was no real check on the Security Type for the security actually held in the SMF.  Yes, you can create it with any (?) type of security initially, but as noted, when you try to change the account type to non-SMF, no go unless the security in the account is a MF.  I wonder if there are any other such hidden subtleties associated with security type in a SMF.

Given my overall dislike for the SMF account to begin with, I would rather see it less restrictive vs more restrictive.  So I would prefer Jim's second option -- "if Stock should be allowed in these accounts, the SMF radio buttons did not disappear" -- as a fix.
Photo of QPW

QPW

  • 370,990 Points 100k badge 2x thumb
If we could travel in time, my fix would be never to implement such a useless feature.  :-)
Photo of q.lurker

q.lurker, SuperUser

  • 275,880 Points 100k badge 2x thumb
@QPW - right.  But once anything is in this program, it seems to stay forever.  I am sure that some users consider SMFs a 'mandatory' feature.  I recall way back when -- when users thought it was the "only" way to go since the transaction list presented a running share total; and that would match up well with the MF statements.    
Photo of NotACPA - QW HBRP 2019

NotACPA - QW HBRP 2019, SuperUser

  • 377,816 Points 100k badge 2x thumb
As I recall it, some MF companies REQUIRED the SMF type of account if one was to download from them.

BAD decision, but not Intuit/Quicken's decision.
Photo of Rich M

Rich M, SuperUser

  • 44,598 Points 20k badge 2x thumb
Do these accounts make any sense anymore?  My Vanguard account was converted to a brokerage account a couple of years ago.  Also more recently I had to open a new Fidelity brokerage account because my funds account limited my trading capabilities.
Photo of QPW

QPW

  • 370,990 Points 100k badge 2x thumb
As I recall it, some MF companies REQUIRED the SMF type of account if one was to download from them.
I suppose it could be like what happens with my wife's 401K account from Merrill Lynch.  It is Web Connect only, and they only send the buys/sells (and send the reinvests as buys also!!), they don't send the contributions.

It isn't a big problem because the paycheck entries supply the missing contribution transactions.  But they never get cleared in the investment account.  So I have to mark them during the reconcile.  Not really a big deal.

And that really seems to be the only thing that is special about a SMF account that really matters.  It knows that any contribution is instantly converted into a buy of that security.

And they are also enforcing this so that the user doesn't mess up the account I guess.
Photo of q.lurker

q.lurker, SuperUser

  • 275,880 Points 100k badge 2x thumb
I do agree that some fund-families 'required' the SMF type of account, but I think when push came to shove, they were really only requiring that there be in Quicken a separate account for each fund.  The fund family was better set up to treat each fund holding as a separate account, so they enforced that on the Quicken user for consistency.  I don't believe they actually cared (logistically) what the account type designation was - SMF or not.  It did take me several years on this site to reach that conclusion. 

Part of what that can lead to is not having to create a new Quicken account when 100% of the fund changes classes.  Basically, reset the connectivity so the new fund-family class account associates to the prior non-SMF Quicken account.    
Photo of NotACPA - QW HBRP 2019

NotACPA - QW HBRP 2019, SuperUser

  • 377,816 Points 100k badge 2x thumb
q.lurker, thanks for the confirmation ... but I believe that your issue actually deals with the implementation/features of the SMF type of account ... and not with their existence.

I also tend agree with your analysis that these features were probably created by Intuit, and not actually a requirement of the various FIs.

My question then would be, if the FI has a one-to-one relationship for each fund at the FI to an SMF account in Q, wouldn't the FI change their end if the original fund was 100% sold?  Thus requiring more than a simple sell-one-fund-buy-another in the particular account?  Wouldn't it require changing the account number in Q?
(Edited)
Photo of q.lurker

q.lurker, SuperUser

  • 275,880 Points 100k badge 2x thumb
Thus requiring more than a simple sell-one-fund-buy-another in the particular account?  Wouldn't it require changing the account number in Q?
That is what I was alluding to in talking about resetting the connectivity.  The FI account #123 was set up as relating to Quicken Account FI-A (not an SMF account).  Account 123 gets replaced #456.  User resets with 456 now connecting to FI-A.  Then user may need to do a manual entry sale/buy or conversion, but the FI continues to see their one account linked to a specific one Quicken account. 

I don't think the gist of the OFX specs limit by SMF status.  The FI is pretty much saying -- here are a bunch of transactions for one fund; put them in one account.  Here are the end of period holdings for that fund.  Check them out against that account.  I don't see where they would be checking whether you had other funds or cash in the history of the account.  Why would they care?

Note I don't do any of that because my FIs don't require one-to-one fund/account relationships.  But the premise appears sound -- to me.  SMF's are not specifically required where the FIs want one-to-one fund/account relationships.