This is correct. Holdings is not built off Holdings History. Holdings is updated dynamically as part of the fill process where we’re only updating fields that actually changed (.e.g value, quantity, etc) with everything is staying the same (so you can add custom columns and those edits will persist). We use Holding ID to identify and update appropriately.
That’s why manual holdings on Holdings History do not show up on the Holdings sheet, because it’s not formula based.
My understanding of how it’s built is that if the fill doesn’t recognize (own) the Holding ID it won’t touch it, but I have a test running to validate that. Just waiting for a Holdings sheet update.
This is a great new feature and appreciate it being added. For some reason I am seeing many duplicates on my Holdings History sheet. It happens with all of my investment accounts and the number of duplicates that occur every time new records are added varies. Sometimes it’s 5 duplicates others times it’s been as many as 17. Every row has the same exact data except for the Date Added column. That value always varies with no consistent time between each of them so it seem the same records are just be added multiple times throughout the day. Is this the expected behavior?
@folkhero I confirmed that the test holding I added directly to the Holdings sheet persists after other holdings on that sheet were updated automatically by the fill. So this confirms you CAN add manual holdings to the Holdings sheet.
I wouldn’t say expected, but that’s just how it’s working right now They aren’t really duplicates (note the ID column also is different).
It’s something we can tune as we continue making improvements, but for now that’s the way it will work. If you just want the latest holdings, use the Holdings sheet.
Hi Heather! Does the dev team know that manual entries to the Holdings sheet now need to persist, and are they willing to support that use case? This sounds like a side effect rather than an expected feature. I had to ask as a fellow developer.
Thank you for the reply Heather. I didn’t notice some columns were hidden and now see the IDs you mentioned. Good to know it’s working as designed and look forward to additional improvements. It’s off to a great start.
@ChrisMildebrandt I’m confused about what you’re asking here. This is already the behavior (the manual Holdings sheet entries DO persist) and yes, that was intended behavior.
Hi @heather , my apologies if I misunderstood. Earlier you mentioned:
I am not 100% how the Holdings sheet handles this. I’m running a test by manually adding a holding to the Holdings sheet to see if it will persist after updates to automated holdings.
My thinking was: if adding manual holdings was an intended feature, you would just say “yes, you can manually add your holdings to the sheet.” Instead, you tested to see if it worked first. So to me, it sounds like it wasn’t clear how the Holdings sheet would behave. If the behavior isn’t clear, then it wasn’t an intended feature. And if it’s not an intended feature, there’s the possibility of it changing/breaking in the future due to a coding change…because the developers don’t know people are now relying on this unintended side-effect of manual holdings persisting.
Again, my apologies if I’m reading too much into your needing to test. And thank you for your community support!
Being able to support manual holdings on the Holdings sheet was communicated to the dev team as being the ideal, but I just hadn’t had a chance to test whether that actually made it across the finish line with this release thus is the nature of beta.
@heather can you add the full range of possible Account Types (e.g., TAXABLE_BROKERAGE
401k, etc.) to the Dummy Data? You could also reply to this message with the listing.
For those using Excel or wanting crypto prices in Excel, you can use powerqueries to get prices. I use powerqueries to pull crypto prices, DJIA, all of my Tiller accounts, bullion prices, and inflation/deflation data from the st louis fed. I used claude and chatgpt to make these. lots of free api access out there.
@Heather,
I have a question about the Holdings sheet that might help others as well.
When the Holdings sheet was first introduced in beta back in June, some of my Money Market Funds only had values in the Quantity column. The Cost Basis, Price and Value fields were blank.
Since most (not all) money market funds have a price of $1.00 per share, I was able to add logic to the sheet I built from Holdings sheet data to automatically adjust add these values when the Holding Type was a moneyMarketFund so :
Cost Basis to match the Quantity
Price to be $1.00
Value to match the Quantity
Today, I saw my Money Market funds, Price and Value fields are now working. But Cost Basis is still blank. Usually the Cost Basis of a Money Market Fund matches the Value, so there is no gain or loss.
Another commenter in the community pointed out that her Money Market Fund in an Annuity has a price that wasn’t $1.00 per share. My earlier logic didn’t handle that situation.
I’m trying to update the logic to handle missing Cost Basis (and possibly other) values, so my sheet will be as accurate as possible.
Is there any guidance or rules from the providers on how they handle these Money Market Funds and why or when they don’t include a Cost Basis or other values? Maybe it depends on the institution, not the provider?
It’s definitely institution specific @jono - we don’t have guidance on why it’s missing sometimes yet. The broader support team is not escalating cases right now, but I did escalate one case as a test to help us identify what support process/data is needed and will report back what I learn. Specifically missing cost basis from Fidelity holdings.
They aren’t really duplicates (note the ID column also is different).
thus is the nature of beta.