|
|
|
Regular Member
 
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 3/09/2011 8:28:08 PM
Posts: 25,
Visits: 66
|
|
| Over the years the super fund has opened more than 10 bank accounts. I note that MySF does not allow more than 10 such accounts. There are several older accounts that have were closed in previously financial years. I initially thought deactivating old accounts may allow the addition of new accounts. Is this so? I have just tried to deactivate one old account through the Manage bank accounts facility, but am getting the message "cannot deactive this account, there are one or more system references" I can find not references in forums to this situation, but I note that your notes do not recommend deleting accounts. What do you recommend be done to ensure all current bank accounts are listed? Your assistance/recommendations would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
MySF Administrator
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 4/11/2010 3:24:01 PM
Posts: 464,
Visits: 633
|
|
Hi,
It is not possible to add more than 10 bank accounts in total, but you may be able to reuse some of the old accounts.
To reuse the account please make sure that the account balance is zero, then rename the bank account (via Cash and Bank Accounts > Manage bank accounts) to the name and details of the new account. You can then process transactions using this new account.
The account in the general ledger will be the same as one that had previously represented another account, but this should not cause a problem provided that the account balance was zero and that you no longer use that previous bank account.
Please let us know if this helps.
Regards,
MySF
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 3/09/2011 8:28:08 PM
Posts: 25,
Visits: 66
|
|
| Thank you for your prompt response. Reusing accounts is the only option then that is what I will have to do. It was something that Iis not desirable as I would not consider good practice. The fund has some Term Deposits with various banks. Unfortunately I have been using Bank accounts to record these. . I have used the Financial - Investment class for managed funds and so I do not want include Term Deposits and other fixed interest investments under this class. I know realise it would have been better to establish another Class of accounts for this type of investments. Do you agree? How many subcategories of accounts can be added to any user defined classes (as I have suggested)? How are accounts coded in any additional classes that are established - Are the accounts coded like the cash accounts (eg 1101) or are they coded like shares and investment classes.(e.g. 1152 AA0051)? In future versions of the software, may I suggest that a separate class be predefined to include other bank assets such as cash invstment accounts and term deposits as I am sure that many other users would have similar issues. Thank you for your anticipated consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
Master Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2/02/2012 9:53:37 PM
Posts: 111,
Visits: 1,917
|
|
Yes, what with a clearing account, main transaction account, 3 basic online internet accounts (as better rates become available) plus an online savings account (better rate) we are already up to 6 current bank accounts (and we haven't even got any term deposits, as yet).
It seems to me that many funds could easily reach the 10 account limit - so I was wondering why you have chosen to limit the number of bank accounts to ten?
I realise that re-using accounts is a work-around (as long as you have closed out and shut down the old account) but I would agree with ywilson that this is not really desirable practice.
So, I would also like to suggest/request that this 10 account limit be removed in future versions of the software.
Regards
Neil H.
|
|
|
|
|
MySF Administrator
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 4/11/2010 3:24:01 PM
Posts: 464,
Visits: 633
|
|
Hi,
Thank you for your feedback and comments regarding bank accounts.
We will try to figure out a way to add more bank accounts, but it is not likely that we will be able to have an unlimited number of bank accounts in the system.
Term deposits
To add term deposits please create a new asset class called "Term desposit" and record the purchase of n units at $1 each. Pulling money out of a term deposit should be processed as a sale of some or all of those same units, again at $1 each (there will be no capital gain or loss). This allows for better tracking of additional units added and interest earned from these assets. It also allows segregation of the term deposit, whereas that is not possible for bank accounts at this point.
Regards,
MySF
|
|
|
|
|
Regular Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 3/09/2011 8:28:08 PM
Posts: 25,
Visits: 66
|
|
| Thank you for your reply. However, it would appear that you have overlooked series of questions I asked in my above response regarding subcategory of accounts in a new class of assets: How many subcategories of accounts can be added to any user defined classes (as I have suggested)? How are accounts coded in any additional classes that are established - Are the accounts coded like the cash accounts (eg 1101) or are they coded like shares and investment classes.(e.g. 1152 AA0051)? Thank you for your anticipated response to these as well. Regards
|
|
|
|
|
MySF Administrator
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 4/11/2010 3:24:01 PM
Posts: 464,
Visits: 633
|
|
Hi,
There can be up to 20 asset classes (10 physical and 10 financial) in MySF Manager with an unlimited number of assets in each class.
Each asset within each asset class is represented as an account that is a sub-account of the header account for that asset class. For example, the header account for asset class 011 (which is called 'Shares' by default) is account number 1151. Any asset added into asset class number 011 will end up with an account under 1151, usually numbered something like 1151 - AA0002. This means that any number of assets can be added and new accounts will continue to be created. If the number of assets in the account exceeds 9999 then the new account number will have an extra digit in the sub number, eg: 1151 - AA12345.
The same system applied to all asset classes, physical and financial.
However, the representation of bank accounts is different. This happens because all the contents of bank accounts are basically 'cash' which is a default asset class that cannot be deleted or edited. The header account for all bank accounts is account number 1100. There is a sub account spot for each bank account, numbered 1101 through to 1110.
In theory it would be possible to change the numbering system so that bank accounts are referred to as 1100 - BNK0001 etc, similar to assets, and allow an unlimited number of bank accounts. Unfortunately in practice this would be very difficult, since any and all transactions that have ever touched any of the bank accounts would need to be redirected and all code that references any bank account would need to be re-written. This would be a huge task and would need to be done without any possibility of flaws as that could cause major problems for data.
At the time of MySF Manager's initial design we saw that our competitors did not allow separate bank accounts and instead had only a simple 'cash at bank' catch all account. We wanted more detail than that and decided that 10 bank accounts would likely be enough for most funds. It seems now that this was a mistake.
We will investigate this further to see if a solution could be found that expands the number of bank accounts while minimising the effect on existing funds and existing data.
Regards,
MySF
|
|
|
|
|
Master Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2/02/2012 9:53:37 PM
Posts: 111,
Visits: 1,917
|
|
Hi,
I hope ywilson will not mind me adding a few of my thoughts/observations re your reply:
The details you have provided explain why there is a current limit of 10 bank accounts - it is understandable that at the time of MySF Manager's initial design you did not anticipate the proliferation of online bank accounts and different account types which result in many of us having multiple bank accounts.
We will investigate this further to see if a solution could be found that expands the number of bank accounts while minimising the effect on existing funds and existing data. Thank-you, it is good to see MySF continuing to try and evolve the product to meet users changing requirements.
In theory it would be possible to change the numbering system so that bank accounts are referred to as 1100 - BNK0001 etc, similar to assets, and allow an unlimited number of bank accounts. Unfortunately in practice this would be very difficult, since any and all transactions that have ever touched any of the bank accounts would need to be redirected and all code that references any bank account would need to be re-written. This would be a huge task and would need to be done without any possibility of flaws as that could cause major problems for data. I was thinking about this problem and had a few thoughts/ideas - however, I am not an accountant and obviously do not have an in depth knowledge in the inner workings of MySF - so please forgive my if my ideas are impractical or make no sense.
any and all transactions that have ever touched any of the bank accounts would need to be redirected and all code that references any bank account would need to be re-written. I can see that this is a difficult task that could give rise to major problems. Wouldn't it be possible/preferable to make the changeover at a specific point in time (with reference to the account history) which, I would imagine, should be at a year-end rollover- so that all transactions up to the relevant YE referenced the old (existing) account numbers - so that any existing records or reports for already closed off years are unchanged.
I guess what I am thinking of is, rather than try and changeover the entire history of the bank account, to instead essentially "close-out" the account at the end of the year and open up a corresponding account (under the new numbering system) for all transactions in the next year. Perhaps there would be an action/tool to "Re-assign account" which, in essence, does a virtual close-out of account (say) 1101 and opens account 1100 - BNK0001 (with all bank and account details copied over) and then transfers the closing balance of 1101 to the opening balance of 1100 - BNK0001 as part of the year-end process.
I realise that there will be many other considerations here:
- where there are transactions spanning uncompleted years and completed but not yet rolled-over years, it will be necessary to specify at which YE rollover the re-assignment is to occur so that transactions prior to this YE reference the old account, whereas transactions post this YE reference the new account.
- the process will have to accomodate YE rollover/rollback without compromising the various account references.
- the systems would have to accomodate both account numbering systems to correctly track transactions pre- and post- account re-assignment.
As I say, I offer this as just food for thought and realise that the issues to be considered require significant investigation - so I do not expect you to respond in terms of specific practicalities/problems.
Regards,
Neil H.
|
|
|
|
|
MySF Administrator
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 4/11/2010 3:24:01 PM
Posts: 464,
Visits: 633
|
|
Hi,
Thank you for your feedback and ideas.
We may be able to allow the addition of the new accounts without neededing to re-route the transactions processed previously. This would involve adding the new bank accounts (beyond 10) as 1100-BNK001 and leaving accounts and bank accounts 1101 through to 1110 as they are at present.
This would mean that no existing data is changed so the risk of problems is greatly decreased.
The only drawback would be that a detailed balance sheet showing account numbers would reveal an inconsistency in the numbering system for bank accounts. Hopefully this is a small enough issue to not cause any real problems.
Please let us know what you think and we will proceed in investigating the implementation of this approach.
Regards,
MySF
|
|
|
|
|
Master Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 2/02/2012 9:53:37 PM
Posts: 111,
Visits: 1,917
|
|
Hi,
Well, I'm not quite running into the 10 account limit just yet - but my view would be that if everything else worked exactly the same for both types of account number - ie:
- all the transactions processed the same
- all the balances correctly fed into the cash holdings balances
- all the reports (cash flow etc) correctly grouped the transactions/balances for both types of account number
then the fact that the account numbering convention for accounts #10 onwards was different from that for accounts 1-10 would be less of an issue than having to re-use account numbers.
Also, although it might be unlikely that a fund had more than 10 currently active bank accounts, this approach would accomodate the situation, whereas re-numbering would only work if there were closed-off accounts to re-use.
It would be good to hear what ywilson, as the original poster - who has actually hit the 10 account limit, thinks.
Regards
Neil H.
|
|
|
|