diff --git a/doc/misc-notes.txt b/doc/misc-notes.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000..3a00fc29db
--- /dev/null
+++ b/doc/misc-notes.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+/** \page rawnotes Miscellaneous Notes.
+
+\section stock splits & cost basis
+
+OK, here's a question for accountants of various different countries:
+What's the cost basis for a stock split? Does the rest of the world do
+it the way the US does it?
+
+For example:
+In Jan 1995 buy 100s stock for $10 per share
+In July 1997 split 2-for-1
+In August 1997, sell 120s stock for $30 per share
+
+I believe the following is correct for the united states:
+My cost basis is $5 per share, and my gains of $25x120 are taxable
+as long-term cap gains.
+
+--- would there ever be a case where the cost basis should be $10 for
+    the first 100 shares, and $0 for the remainder?
+--- would there ever be a case where the gains would be considered
+    'short-term' for some portion of the total?
+
+\subsection Spin off stocks.
+
+OK, that was easy. Here's the harder one: a spin-off:
+
+For example:
+In Jan 1995 buy 100s of stock A for $10 per share
+In July 1997 receive 1s of stock B for every 20s of stock A.
+Stock B is new, and will trade under its own new ticker symbol
+as of the date of this split.
+
+-- What's my cost basis for B? is it $0.000 ?
+-- What's my cost basis for A? is it $10, or something else?
+-- Are these questions supposed to be answered by company A,
+   or do I just 'guess'?
+
+Note there is still an invarient:
+(old price of A) * 20s == (new price of A) *20s + (price of B) * 1s
+
+\section Depreciation, Sinking Funds ...
+
+On 21 Apr 2000 20:39:43 CDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
+John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org>  said:
+\verbatim
+> Lauren writes:
+> > I'm not familliar with sinking funds, but what makes them a bit different
+> > from a book entry like depreciation (also somewhat virtual) is that they
+> > are happening with real accounts that need to be reconciled against an
+> > outside statement.
+>
+> I don't see that.  While the purpose of a sinking fund may be to pay off
+> some bonds in ten years and there may even exist a legal obligation to have
+> it, the funds being transferred to it now have nothing to do with any
+> outside statement.
+>
+> A sinking fund to pay off some bonds is pretty much the same thing as
+> saving up to pay off the balloon payment on the morgage.
+>
+> When you transfer funds to your "Savings Goal" or your "Sinking Fund" you
+> are transferring funds from one asset account to another.  Just credit
+> 'Cash' and debit 'Savings Goals:Honeymoon'.
+\endvarbatim
+
+The problem with proceeding to credit Cash and debit "Savings Goal" is
+that this invalidates any reconciliation of Cash.  I'd be game to do
+this if I credited not Cash, but rather "Cash:Goals", a subaccount of
+Cash that can be ignored when it needs to be,
+
+For different purposes, I will want both to consider and ignore these
+"funds reservations."
+
+- When making up a <b>budget</b>, I care about what funds are reserved for
+   particular purposes.
+
+- When trying to figure out if my bank account is going to be
+overdrawn, "reserved" funds are <b>irrelevant.</b>
+
+I would thus suggest that the "gentle user" use the budget system to
+manage this rather than having these be "true" transactions in the
+ledger.
+*/