Home Page "portfolio value graph by account" order of of accounts doesn't match default order

rmm405

On the home page, I've selected the Portfolio Value Graph by Account to display. I've got a lot of accounts, and on the Accounts List and in the Investing view, I've put them in the order of highest balances to lowest, so that I could see on the stacked bar chart most of the major accounts and their values. Of course, I expected smaller accounts to be lumped together in "other". However, the chart seems to be showing accounts based on their create date, or some other order I cannot determine. The consequence is that most accounts are lumped into "other" showing me no insight and smaller accounts are not too visible. So, the graph is now more like "total" rather than account by account. It's also true that I've moved a bunch of funds lately, so older data shows differently, relative to Oct 2020. See screenshot.

Rich_M

@rmm405 First, I have to tell you that I'm still using an older version of Quicken, so I don't know if this view has changed, but it doesn't seem to have.

When I look at my own view, what I see is a list of my 5 largest accounts in alphabetical order, with everything else going into other.

Also, when I match the colors in each bar to the account list, I notice that the accounts are shown in reverse alphabetical order in the bar, not sure why.

I don't see any option to customize the order of the accounts in my version, I can only select the accounts and securities I want to include and change the date range.

Also, If you click on the graph you will get another graph in a report which displays more accounts than the main view.

Chris_QPW

I doubt even the programmers have a way of controlling this.  I would bet the behavior is built into the graphing library they are using.

rmm405

Thank you both @Rich_M and @Chris_QPW for your thoughts.

Since I've added new accounts that have most of the money, but *historically* the accounts that have lower balances now had the highest balances, I think @Rich_M ideas are likely the best to explain my current situation. If that's right, and the software is evaluating account size based on the *earliest* or *first* bar it has to draw, then I'm getting results aligned with @Rich_M predictions.

In fact, I just tested this idea and it works. If I set the earliest date to graph to yesterday (when my newer accounts had the most money) and the latest date to graph to about a month from now, I get a weekly graph .... but it's organized as @Rich_M expects: alphabetical order for the largest 5 accounts.

@Chris_QPW If it's true that Quicken programmers can't control what their customers are getting, that strikes me as harder to believe. If it's true that the graphics package is so inflexible, they ought to get another one!

Thanks again to both for your engagement here; I now understand how it works, and how to do a workaround if I need to.

Chris_QPW

What I was saying is that it is unlikely that the graphic package they are using will allow them to place each account/bar exactly where they want.  Or even if it will it is unlikely that the developer would use such functionality.  Instead it would be done at a "higher level".  As in maybe it would give different "sorting options" like alphabetic.

They have no idea if there is going to be one account or a thousand.  They have to have a system that presents the data in a reasonable way without being overly complicated.  And they are going to rely on the graphic package to do most of the heavy lifting of formatting and such.

rmm405

Your additional comments are helpful. I agree there must be some algorithm to determine how many bars, in what order, etc. Given what @Rich_M is telling us, and my own little test, it seems like the sorting option they've chosen is "largest 5 accounts; all else in other, *and* base that test on the first bar being shown in the graphic, even if numbers change a lot later on".

And, I agree that Quicken programmers are facing major unknowns, as you say, so the algorithm to decide what to present and how needs to be fixed, even if the data is not.

Thank you very much for your engagement and willingness to help out!

rmm405

By "needs to be fixed" above, I mean "needs to be pre-determined", *not* "needs to be repaired"