nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Portfolio View: Return for one equity is different when grouped by accounts than grouped by security

unknown

Win 10 / Q 2016 Premier.
I have a security (COP) where the entire position is in one account. When I look at the Portfolio View showing Value under the Investing Tab, the Return for that position is $1,635 when "Group: by Account," but (negative) ($898) when Group by: Security.

All of the other metrics are identical in both views, including # of Shares, Cost Basis, Average Cost per Share, etc. Also the "Return %" for YTD, 1-Year, 3-Year, and 5-Year are identical. It's just total return that doesn't match between views.This position reinvests dividends, but then, so do my other positions, and they don't have this problem.

If I look at the expanded position under "Group by: Accounts," it shows:
For original position of 300 shares, original cost of those 300 shares is $17,478. Due to reinvestment, there are now 369.x shares at today's price of $51.67. Total value of position is $19,113. Return shows $1,635 (current position value, including the dividend reinvested shares, minus the original position cost). So - that math works.

Not that it matters, but the position is at a loss (counting the cost of the dividend shares) of ($2,586) under both views.

Under "Group by: Security" view, the return is ($898) with a total position loss matching the ($2,586) under the "Group by: Account." The delta between the two "Return" views is $2,533 ie: $1,635 minus (negative) ($898).

I am at a total loss to explain this. It's just a change of the drop down list from Group by Account to Group By Equity. What changes?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

q_lurker

I am at a loss as well, though I have seen that type of aberration at other times for some parameters (no specifics in mind).

Just searching:

What about Group By: Security Type? Which way does that lean?
I presume this is repeatable, each time you close and open Quicken.
I'd have Quicken copy the file and go the Validate route on the copy taking the rebuild lots option.
What time frame is involved? As of Date and from the Options / Preferences, what starting date? Are there any "odd" transactions in that time frame? If you adjust the time frame, do the values remain apart by the $2533? Can you find a time frame where both selections agree?

unknown

Wow. Interesting questions. I tried Security type - same as sorted by security. As a matter of fact, every other type is the same as Group By: Security. What do they have in common? The fact that it's the only view where you can't expand the position to see dividend reinvestments. So, that is interesting. The second question: Yup. It's repeatable. #4 Time frame goes back to July 2011. Odd transactions? Sort of hard to tell in that it shows I bought and sold some of this security in a second account as well, but I think you are on to something. Conoco Phillips (COP) spun off Phillips 66 (PSX) in April 2012. I don't remember the details, I just remember I had a devil of a time reconciling aspects of that activity in Quicken. I checked with the broker on line, though, and the return matches their return (the group by account version).

Since it's only happening with this one security, and it's return, not gain or loss, I'm not going to worry too much about it and just write it off to the anomaly of the spin off. I've done numerous validations in the past, but I've never done a rebuild lots. I don't really understand what can go wrong with that option, so I just never tempted fate.

q_lurker

Wow. Interesting questions. I tried Security type - same as sorted by security. As a matter of fact, every other type is the same as Group By: Security. What do they have in common? The fact that it's the only view where you can't expand the position to see dividend reinvestments. So, that is interesting. The second question: Yup. It's repeatable. #4 Time frame goes back to July 2011. Odd transactions? Sort of hard to tell in that it shows I bought and sold some of this security in a second account as well, but I think you are on to something. Conoco Phillips (COP) spun off Phillips 66 (PSX) in April 2012. I don't remember the details, I just remember I had a devil of a time reconciling aspects of that activity in Quicken. I checked with the broker on line, though, and the return matches their return (the group by account version).

Since it's only happening with this one security, and it's return, not gain or loss, I'm not going to worry too much about it and just write it off to the anomaly of the spin off. I've done numerous validations in the past, but I've never done a rebuild lots. I don't really understand what can go wrong with that option, so I just never tempted fate.

A discussion on the COP PSX spinoff: https://getsatisfaction.com/quickencommunity/topics/what-can-you-do-when-the-corporate-securities-sp... FWIW.

That was the type of circumstance I was referring to as possibly an odd transaction that may have made something go askew. Might depend on how you actually handled the details. Several Buys and sells could also be throwing a wrench in the works.

So if you set the starting date after the April 2012 spinoff actions (maybe 1/1/13, or 1/1/16), do the two presentations agree?

I don't really understand what can go wrong with that option, so I just never tempted fate.

That is a wise judgement. The corollary to it is make a backup, then experiment to your heart's (and mind's) content. With a good backup, you can beat fate when you tempt it too far.

unknown

Wow. Interesting questions. I tried Security type - same as sorted by security. As a matter of fact, every other type is the same as Group By: Security. What do they have in common? The fact that it's the only view where you can't expand the position to see dividend reinvestments. So, that is interesting. The second question: Yup. It's repeatable. #4 Time frame goes back to July 2011. Odd transactions? Sort of hard to tell in that it shows I bought and sold some of this security in a second account as well, but I think you are on to something. Conoco Phillips (COP) spun off Phillips 66 (PSX) in April 2012. I don't remember the details, I just remember I had a devil of a time reconciling aspects of that activity in Quicken. I checked with the broker on line, though, and the return matches their return (the group by account version).

Since it's only happening with this one security, and it's return, not gain or loss, I'm not going to worry too much about it and just write it off to the anomaly of the spin off. I've done numerous validations in the past, but I've never done a rebuild lots. I don't really understand what can go wrong with that option, so I just never tempted fate.

So if you set the starting date after the April 2012 spinoff actions (maybe 1/1/13, or 1/1/16), do the two presentations agree?

Not sure what you mean by "starting date"

That said, I just had a thought. When looking at the return on this equity in account mode, I get the correct $$$, but that would be restricted to that particular position. I"m wondering if the other numbers somehow take into consideration of the entire return at large (within the same time range I had purchased some COP in a different account and sold it off after the PSX spinoff). Researching it, though, it looks like I got at least what I originally paid for it (I think I just viewed the PSX as my profit).

Rocket J Squirrel

I believe the answer lies in your parenthetical remark "(within the same time range I had purchased some COP in a different account and sold it off after the PSX spinoff)".

All calculations named "Return" use a Quicken quantity named "Amount Invested". Amount Invested does not go down when you sell some shares. It only goes all the way to zero when you sell all shares.

Quicken Help says "Amount invested doesn't decrease when you sell shares (unless you sell all
shares of a given security—then it goes to zero), whereas cost basis does. If
calculations such as ROI appear lower than you would expect, it could be because
the amount invested includes the cost of shares you no longer own."

Many of us believe this is a bug, but it's been this way forever and shows no sign of getting fixed.

So when you group by accounts, the Amount Invested is correct because you sold shares in a different account. When you group by security or similar, Amount Invested is erroneously high, so Returns are too low.

q_lurker

Wow. Interesting questions. I tried Security type - same as sorted by security. As a matter of fact, every other type is the same as Group By: Security. What do they have in common? The fact that it's the only view where you can't expand the position to see dividend reinvestments. So, that is interesting. The second question: Yup. It's repeatable. #4 Time frame goes back to July 2011. Odd transactions? Sort of hard to tell in that it shows I bought and sold some of this security in a second account as well, but I think you are on to something. Conoco Phillips (COP) spun off Phillips 66 (PSX) in April 2012. I don't remember the details, I just remember I had a devil of a time reconciling aspects of that activity in Quicken. I checked with the broker on line, though, and the return matches their return (the group by account version).

Since it's only happening with this one security, and it's return, not gain or loss, I'm not going to worry too much about it and just write it off to the anomaly of the spin off. I've done numerous validations in the past, but I've never done a rebuild lots. I don't really understand what can go wrong with that option, so I just never tempted fate.

Starting Date: From the Portfolio View, there is an Options selection (may be a 'gear' icon) that offers up a selection for Portfolio Preferences. There you can define a starting point to Show Return Calculations from : Earliest available date, or from a user specified date.

As with all your other securities, the return should be the same regardless of which way data is grouped. I (we) am looking here for what is in this securities history that might cause Quicken to come up with two different numbers. If it can be established that transactions on some specif date (1/2/13) make things different, then the 'fix' might be as simple as deleting and re-entering those specific transactions, even if nothing is outwardly and obviously wrong with them.

It is true that when grouped By Security, the transactions from the other account will be included even if those shares had been sold and the position closed in that other account. You might test in that direction by customizing the view to exclude that one account, then see if the group by selection makes a difference.

Another way to approach that would be to use the option (see above) to Show Closed lots. That might reveal that in account 2 you showed a $2533 return that creates for the difference.

unknown

Thanks folks. Both sets of answers were sage. It's the fact that all shares from all accounts are being calculated regardless of their disposition. Excellent info. Love the user names!