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; } } }

QW2017 R6: "Growth of $10,000 graph" is generated incorrectly

M C Crockett

Since installing the QW2017 R6 update, Quicken Premier 2017 no longer generates a valid "Growth of $10,000" graph correctly on the Investing > Performance page.

To demonstrate this problem, click on Investing and then Performance to display the page. Select All, Investing, or Retirement group accounts or an individual account. Then set the time period for Last 12 months. Next scroll down to the "Growth of $10,000" and select the S&P 500 index and any other indices that you would like to compare.

Look at the left side of the graph, you will find a separate dot for the account being compared and each of the indices that you selected instead of a single dot. As you move your cursor over each dot on the left the starting value for the account or indices being displayed. None of them will report $10,000 as the starting value. All of the displayed values will be between $10,000 and $11,000.

Actually none of the time periods beginning with "Last" will generate a valid graph with the selected account and indices starting with a value of $10,000.

I did discover, however, that valid graphs will be generated when the time period is set to "Year to date", "Quarter to date", or "Month to date".

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

mshiggins

MC, are you sure the issue didn't start with R5? I see the R5 release notes mention a fix to the growth of $10k graph.

https://www.quicken.com/support/quick...

M C Crockett

MC, are you sure the issue didn't start with R5? I see the R5 release notes mention a fix to the growth of $10k graph.

https://www.quicken.com/support/quick...

@mshiggins: While the release notes indicate that changes to the "Growth of $10,000" graph were made in R5, the graphs were being generated correctly until I installed the R6 update.

I prefer having the graph displayed using the "Last 12 months" period as it covers the same time period for the "Average Annual Return" report. Until R6 was installed, all graphs started with a value of $10,000.

The worst example of the R6 changes involves my taxable investment account. It's starting value is $10,810 while the S&P 500 graph starts with $10,043. The graphs for each of my IRA accounts generally have a starting value of around $10,100.

When I added the Dow Jones, NASDAQ, and Russell 2000 indices to the graph, there were 5 distinct starting points and none had a starting value of $10,000.

If I switch to a Month, Quarter, or Year to date graph the starting value for the selected account and indices will be $10,000.

----------------------------------

One of the related conversations indicated that the database needed to be validated to resolve a graph problem several years ago. I just did that.

I just looked at the "Growth of $10,000" graph comparing my taxable investment account with the S&P 500 index.

The starting value for my taxable investment account is displayed as $10,753.78 on 2016-04-30. It's ending value on 2017-04-13 is reported as $11,664.49.

The starting value on 2016-04-30 for the S&P 500 graph is reported as $9916.07 and its ending value on 2017-04-13 is reported as $11,258.65.

As an aside, the R5 release did stop reporting any additions or withdrawals from the accounts in the graphs. As a retiree subject to RMD, this does detract from the graph's value.

Jim_Harman

I think what Quicken is doing is setting the $10K starting point to the values exactly one year ago but the graph shows the values as of the end of that month.

Example: Today is 4/14/17. Looking at the "Last 12 months" graph and including the NASDAQ index, hovering over the first dot shows a price of $4775.36 and a value of $9670.21.

4775.36 is the value in my price history for the NASDAQ on 4/29/16 (4/30 was a Saturday.)

On 4/15/16 the NASDAQ was 4938.216

4775.36 / 4938.216 = 0.967021. Multiply that by 10000 and you get 9670.21

So the graph is correct, it just doesn't show the mid-month starting data point. That also explains why the "... to date" graphs all start at $10K.