Do you use sub-accounts for individual stocks? Why?
I do because I found it more deterministic to balance and close accounts,
but I've always thought the explicit open/close directives were redundant
with lot tracking. Else why not go all out with `Broker:GOOG-2024-03-02`?
Now I'm starting to use more queries and metadata (coming from basic fava
usage), and am not looking forward to finding and maintaining the meta on
each individual open directive. I'm considering opening a parent account
and filtering using coalesce:
2024-01-01 open Assets:IRA
tax-status: "Deferred"
2024-01-01 close Assets:IRA ; Or maybe use for USD/fiat
2024-01-01 open Assets:IRA:GOOG GOOG
Then I think I could get the meta like so:
coalesce(getitem(open_meta(account), 'tax-status'),
getitem(open_meta(parent(account)), 'tax-status'))
... But this seems like a hack, so I'm wondering if it really makes sense
to keep the sub-accounts. Alternatively, this complete balance assertion
<https://beancount.github.io/docs/balance_assertions_in_beancount.html#partial-vs.-complete-assertions>
proposal looks perfect for my concerns about balance tracking.
What else would I miss by simplifying to multi-currency accounts?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Beancount" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to beancount+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/ffb2860d-48c9-49a4-90f8-77c8738f58d9n%40googlegroups.com.
