![]() |
|
|
Welcome to the { mindfrost82.com } forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
Passive Laddered Bonds: Table Structure?
I posted this on microsoft.public.access - then realized that this was
a more appropriate group. -------------------------------------------------------- Muni bonds. Accounts within accounts.... sort of. Somebody buys 150 mil of XYZ into account A Trade ticket for 150 mil goes to fund accounting and we need to know that's where the money is. BUT: at the time of the trade, the trader allocates 50 mil of 150 to account D as XYZ, 75 mil to account F as XYZ, and 25 mil to account M - also as XYZ. Now XYZ's 150 mil is in the DB twice: a lump in account A and three pieces in accounts D, F, and M. But we need to report on accounts A, D, F, and M the same way. i.e. they are co-equals for reporting purposes. Doesn't seem like a parent-child relationship. But what is it? Some sort of recursive relationship? I've *really* got to get this one right. Anybody been here? |
|
|||
|
Re: Passive Laddered Bonds: Table Structure?
PeteCresswell (PeteCress@gmail.com) writes:
> I posted this on microsoft.public.access - then realized that this was > a more appropriate group. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Muni bonds. > > Accounts within accounts.... sort of. > > Somebody buys 150 mil of XYZ into account A > > Trade ticket for 150 mil goes to fund accounting and we need to know > that's where the money is. > > BUT: at the time of the trade, the trader allocates 50 mil of 150 to > account D as XYZ, 75 mil to account F as XYZ, and 25 mil to account M > - also as XYZ. > > Now XYZ's 150 mil is in the DB twice: a lump in account A and three > pieces in accounts D, F, and M. > > But we need to report on accounts A, D, F, and M the same way. i.e. > they are co-equals for reporting purposes. Seems contradictive to me. If A, D, F and M are peers, then the asset cannot be two accounts at the same time. That is not at least my idea of double book-keeping. If D, F and M are cost centres or somesuch it makes more sense. In any case, these sort of data modelling questions are very difficult to do in a newsgroup, because there are so many fine details you need to know, and so many subtle questions you need to ask. Finance happens to be my area, but every shop does things in their own way. And the rules and regulations are different in different countries. -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se Links for SQL Server Books Online: SQL 2008: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/cc514207.aspx SQL 2005: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb895970.aspx SQL 2000: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx |
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|