On Oct 6, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Martin Blais <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Mike Charlton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thank you for posting this.  Your second example explains weirdness that I 
> was seeing but couldn't comprehend.
> 
> So to put it succinctly, ledger balances as long as the rounded amounts 
> balance.  Perhaps I don't understand all of the nuances, but I have to say 
> that I don't like that.  If a transaction is off by a fraction of a cent, 
> then that *does not balance* for me!
> 
> Then you will never be able to balance anything that has a price or a cost. 
> There has to be rounding somewhere.

Strictly speaking, the price-adjustment option would be possible in ledger, 
which uses rational numbers as internal representation, allowing for exact 
balancing. But ledger is ill-equipped to solve this problem for other reasons, 
for example, its lack of lot matching.

Beancount could solve this by attaching a total cost to each inventory, in 
addition to a per-share cost (with the stipulation that | total cost - number * 
share cost | < tolerance). You still have to face the fact, however, that if 
you have three shares worth $0.333 each, with a total cost to you of $1.00, and 
you sell these one at a time at the same price but you receive $0.33 each, even 
though their price has not changed, there is a penny that has disappeared. Is 
that an expense due to rounding or a capital loss? Again, it doesn't really 
matter, but I feel like I should pick one.
 
>   I haven't decided whether or not having an elided expense account or simply 
> reporting the exchange rate that was actually used is better. 
> 
> Note that an elided expense account effectively disables any balance checks.
> This is not a solution.

If it is built into the system, the elided expense account can also balance 
check. That is, insert a 'Expenses:Rounding' transaction, but only if the 
difference is less than some tolerance (and only if there is a price/cost)

The question is whether Expenses:Rounding is better than having the ability to 
run a report listing all transactions which don't quite balance, so you feel 
good about your overall balance being out of whack.

Simon Michael: 
> Correction: ledger reg liabilities.
Yes, thanks.

Nathan

-- 

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Ledger" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to