I do not believe Moneydance allows for a 0 price in a cover transaction. I believe some programs take a 0 price in a Cover transaction to mean that the option was allowed to lapse I'm not convinced this is the case with Moneydance and thus be best approach to take.
The short transaction would have increased the Cash balance in the account, by 109.38 in your example, although you would not see this reflected in the side bar or on the summary page, as this seems to be netted within the account.
I would be looking for the short and its matching cover transactions to come to a net result of 0 within the account as well as outside of it and I would think a short transaction of 1 option with a total value of 109.38 would achieve this in this case. the only cost would therefore be the fee (i.e premium).
Thanks for reply. As I understand money dance seems to be working correct to maintain cash balance. It does not matter if I use shortsell or just sell for opening txn.
Only problem to me it does seems to default price per 1 option contract unit to 100 when i enter total cost as zero for the cover transaction. Total cost is still 0 for the cover transaction. As I said before it does not cause any problem as such it is just annoying and confusing to see 100 as option price while for cover tranaction.
BTW it does not matter if I use buy instead of cover. it handling cash balance correctly but still showing option price for buy as zero. Seems like it not able to calculate price per unit as zero when total cost is zero.
There are places in Investment accounts where Moneydance uses values like 100 as placeholder values, i.e. they have no effect but it seems the software requires something to be there, this is especially noticeable in dividends were there should be no price but you routinely see values like 100. It is possible that a similar thing is happening here, or it could just be that Moneydance has a problem with a zero amount especially if it is not expected. I have not really seen any information of the expectations Moneydance has when using Short and Cover transactions.
I also have a question re Cover. I sold a put option on a stock in May and recorded it as a short sale. Everything seemed fine. The cash was properly recorded. Today I closed the contract at a non-zero price, so that aspect of the previous discussion is not relevant. I made a capital gain on these transactions, but the capital gains report still shows the entire gross revenue on the original sale as my gain. This is wrong; I paid something to close the contract. The cash part of the recording is fine. Any advice?
I noticed the Capital gains report is wrong when there are short/cover transactions. The capital gains report seems to have a number of problems, for example it does the same sort of thing on unrealised capital gains.