Pranesh,
On Monday, December 28, 2020 at 9:17:58 AM UTC-5 wrote:
>
> Sadly, I'm still trying to figure out how Lotter works before using it
> with my files. (I currently use real currency trading accounts
> ("Equity:Trading:XXX:YYY") for commodity interchanges, as described in the
> Github Wiki,[1] rather than the virtual postings that Lotter seems to
> generate. And given the format I currently use, I don't capture
> lot-related information, which I ideally should.)
>
The idea behind lotter is that you capture the actual trades in your ledger
file, then lotter adds additional splits that don't change anything, but
add information about inventory, cost basis, and gains/losses. It is
supposed to save you the trouble of capturing lot-related information.
You can try lotter without fear. It doesn't change your original file.
Use it to make a new file with the lot splits added, then run ledger-cli on
that file to see the effects of the additional splits.
>
> What kind output would Lotter have if I accumulated currency from two
> distinct purchases and sold them at once?
>
It will create two lots of inventory, one for each purchase. Then, show
both lots consumed when sold, as several splits added to the sell
transaction.
> What would the "[Lot:Income:long term gain]" be in such a case, and on
> what basis would it be calculated (FIFO? LIFO? ACB?)
>
It might show long term gain, short term gain, or both, depending on the
dates of the events.
It supports LIFO or FIFO only. I don't have plans to add others, but I'm
happy to review patches.
> Would Lotter allow me to tell it what time period should be counted as
> "short term gain" and what is "long term gain"? I imagine the rules for
> determining this in the US aren't the same as in India.
>
It is hard-coded to one year. What is the policy in india?
>
> One reason why Lotter seems attractive to me over my current system is
> that it would enable me to leverage improvements in the ledger ecosystem
> using its native syntax (XX @ YY / XX @@ YY), while also using currency
> trading accounts for "proper" (Selinger-style) double-entry accounting.
>
Yes, that's the idea. Lotter requires the "@" or "@@" syntax to infer
whether a transaction is a trade.
-David
--
---
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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ledger-cli/bcd8a26f-b27c-49e9-ab07-dbf196f10149n%40googlegroups.com.
