[moneydance] Help !! Please tell me I'm crazy !! or dumb or..

[Katahdin]

Thank you Ruth and Fuzzy Fox !!

Unfortunately, for old guys like me who learned it one way, basic
accounting standards, it was/is still confusing when you're looking at
historical JE (journal entries), which in  my case are mostly splits
to one type or another acct.  It's like having to drive on the left
(or right) depending on where you are !!  ;=}   Where r u? I'm
definitely glad to hear that the internal transactions are signed
appropriately.

So how about the Income / Expense accts?

I just looked at an Income acct - a check book deposit is entered in
the leftmost column with Decrease as column heading , the balance is
positive and blue. In an expense acct, a straight transaction is
entered in the rightmost column, Increase heading, balance positive
and blue.   Still seems a bit inconsistent, but then i can be confused
easily !!  ;=}  And then again, who cares as long as the reports are
accurate and clear.   I was just expecting a consistent debit/credit -
left/right format thru all accounts.

Fuzzy,

>I don't see how what you've described above is contradictory to what
>I've said, or how Moneydance works.

The paragraph that you'r responding to - was NOT me but copied with
the link from the MoneyDance faq website. The link was missing the
http:// because that seemed to be the reason my reply wouldnt post
until I took that out. Check this out -

http://moneydance.com/userguide-contents/ch4p1.html       or the link
i used before:
http://moneydance.com/trac/wiki/Understanding_Moneydance_Accounts

What I was primarily commenting on, was this statement : "Moneydance
uses the double entry method of accounting." Which to me would
indicate standard accounting procedures. I believe they're the same in
the UK as the US.

I really have gotten to like MD -  heck if you spend a lot of time
with anyone - you gotta like them, eh?   BUT - One of the reasons, I
(and many others) liked the original Dos Quicken, is that the
accounting transactions were clean and simple.  The last version which
is the one I used the most, was just an efficient way to enter
checkbook transactions, quickly, in a heads down data entry manner,
along with the functionality of asset, liabilities, income and expense
accts.  Depending on the acct type, it was all pluses and minuses, and
followed the standard accounting math for debits/credits.  I never had
an interest in doing the investing or banking connections.   My point
is that an easy accounting program based on the checkbook, would
satisfy a majority of businesses!!  Heck, that's why Quicken took the
basic functions and reports out of it, so that they could force people
into quickbooks, which if I recall promoted the use of the acct
receivable, acct payable functions to run properly. Most businesses
only need a good checkbook pgm like the old dos quicken, they don't
have receipts based on invoices but over the counter (ie daily sales),
don';t give credit, and pay their expenses fairly quickly, thus they
are not dependent on an A/P sub-system, but they get that info on a
quarterly or annual basic for reporting , take inventory, add up
unpaid bills (and give the figures to the accountant who tells them
how to enter the appropriate Journal Entries, and run the reports.
Additionally, how many prospective MD customers left after a quick
review and they didn't under why their test didnt match up with their
previous program or accountants report.

I guess what I'm working up to, is that I see that MD (or another
basic accounting program) could and would be used by the majority of
small businesses, along with accountants, easy to setup and explain to
clients, but with windows,mac, linux file security, that was missing
in DOS.   Actually I'm just surprised that MD doesn't perform the
basic accounting data entry and functions that was in DOS quicken, an
old - 15 years or more program and one of the most popular programs.
Why re-invent the wheel?  I keep harping on the ease of heads-down
data entry, because most small businesses don't enter data every day,
but on a monthly, quarterly, or annually.  Maybe a  version, without
the online stuff and bells and whistles. Not that I don't like bells
and whistles, but I see some of the transaction data entry
suggestions, that people have mentioned as more significant than they
seem. So the developer addresses what seems to be the critical issues.

LOL - I actually had a couple of important how to questions, when I
got here !!!   Thanks for your help.  Your response and someone on the
forum, kept me plugging away at fixing all my imported accts - over
50. Took longer than I would have expected.  Plus renaming and putting
them into sub-accounts etc.

Too late tonight --
TIA

On 3/3/08, Ruth Harris <starshiphome at inboxemail.com> wrote:
> Fuzzy Fox is correct. What you are seeing in Moneydance is a fairly
>  widespread practice in commercial accounting packages - the use of the
>  "reverse sign" function. It does not change the underlying data, nor its
>  entry; what it does is display a negative number for the account's
>  positive balance. That is, if you use the reverse sign function on a
>  liability account which is typically a credit balance, it will display a
>  negative number assuming that the account actually has a credit balance.
>  If the liability account has a debit balance, the number will show as
>  positive.
>
>  Ruth
>
>
>  Fuzzy Fox wrote:
>  > Katahdin <MoneyDance at intermod.net> wrote:
>  >
>  >> First, a simple lesson in accounting. Moneydance uses the double
>  >> entry method of accounting. This means that there is a link between
>  >> accounts, so when money goes somewhere, one account should increase
>  >> and another should decrease.
>  >>
>  >
>  > I don't see how what you've described above is contradictory to what
>  > I've said, or how Moneydance works.
>  >
>  > Asset accounts normally have positive balances, Liabilities normally
>  > have negative.
>  >
>  > When your asset increases in value, it does so at the expense of a
>  > liability account.  When the asset goes up $1000, the liability goes
>  > down, by -$1000.  This is exactly what I described in my previous
>  > message, but you seem to be trying to say that it's wrong.  Can you
>  > point out the flaw?
>  >
>  >
>
> _______________________________________________
>  moneydance-info mailing list
>  moneydance-info at moneydance.com
>  http://moneydance.com/mailman/listinfo/moneydance-info
>