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; } } }

Completely incorrect numbers on Portfolio Performance view

Vitali Z Coppersmith

I've never really trusted Quicken's performance calculation as they always looked way off in the past. But really need to use them now and all the numbers are very obviously way off on their face value.
I download all transaction religiously and reconcile them monthly and have been for many years, so I know the ledgers are right.
Examples:
1) One brokerage account shows negative returns for all periods (1, 3, and 5 years), but the graph shows a balance higher than cost basis and having archived it within last 5 years or less. And that's not even counting dividends and interest. So obviously it can't be right.
2) Several accounts show exactly the same % returns, down to 2 digits after decimal, for all periods, yet have been there long enough to cover all periods and more. That's not possible as a coincidence.
3) An fairly new account which only earned me interest and had no losses, ever, is showing as 93.36% annual loss. lol.
4) Opening the individual security window shows the exact same performance for all periods, even for shares owned for much longer that any of them.

It's like it's been [Removed-Language] or something, LOL.

What is going on and is there a fix?
Needless to say, I've run file repair many times throughout my use already.
[Edited - Readability]

Find more posts tagged with

Investments

Windows

Accepted answers

Jim_Harman

The issue is not distinguishing between MFs and ETFs it is between Stocks and ETFs. Whatever service looks up the ticker symbols apparently does not know the difference or Quicken ignores that info.

It would be nice if Quicken had a built-in Type for ETFs because Stocks can only have one asset class and ETFs often have a mixture.

All comments

Quicken Kristina

Hello @Vitali Z Coppersmith,

Thank you for reaching out to the Community and telling us about this issue. I'm sorry to hear you're running into this problem. When did you first notice this problem? Do you recall which version of Quicken you were using when the issue first started? Have you checked to make sure only the accounts you want it to include in the Performance view are showing? If it is set to all accounts, there's a chance it may be showing duplicate or incorrect accounts. The data in the Performance view also includes Placeholder entries. Have you verified that there are no incorrect Placeholders throwing off the numbers?

Thank you.

Mark1104

@Vitali Z Coppersmith - are you looking at the returns in the portfolio view? Instead, look at the Investment performance report. I have found that to be VERY ACCURATE as it is simply an IRR calculation that I have reconfirmed by replicating in EXCEL.

Since this report is an IRR calcuation, placeholder transactions aren't included nor does any mis reporting of cost basis matter. the report is based on the ins and outs of the cash to buy and sell the securities, which is how IRR is determined.

the only thing to watch for is if you run a report that represents less than a 1 year period of time. it will annualize the result so things can look 'weird'. Rather than doing a YTD calculation for 2023, I always choose 'yearly' to eliminate that phenomenon.

Also, you can choose to include or exclude fees in the performance / IRR calculation. To see that go to the specific CATEGORY and edit it. You'll see a check box to affect investment performance.

Jim_Harman

@Vitali Z Coppersmith I second @Mark1104 s comments on the Investment Performance Report (IPR).

But what exactly are you looking at - The Investing > Performance page? The standard Investing > Portfolio Historic Performance view? Something else?

When discussing the Portfolio views, it is important to use the exact names of the columns, because similarly named columns show different data.

Also in the Portfolio views, many of the calculations depend on the starting date you have set in Options > Portfolio Preferences. If in doubt, use Earliest to date.

If the IPR doesn't explain what you are seeing, please post back with more details.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/comment/20372391#Comment_20372391

No, IK don't recall what version it started in, but long ago. Because it always looked wrong which is why i never gave it serious consideration until now. But it's wrogn even if I only select recent transaction pleriod only.
Not sure what a placeholder transaction is, but probably not because if I used them I'd probably know.
And I selected only the accounts I want to see. besides, as I said in my examples, it's wrong even for the specific accounts, not just overall.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

I go to Investing/Performance.
And I can see 1yr, 3rs, and 5 yrs periods. All wrong, including on accounts at least 5 years old.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

Investing/performance.
Columns are pre-labeled 1 year, 3 year, 5 year.
Wrong all columns when selecting earliest date to date or when only selecting custom dates (last 6 years or so because there's not much investment activity before that).

Vitali Z Coppersmith

Jus realized that changing dates only changes the graph display, not the table below. The table below which gives the grazy figures is labeled Average Annual Return and has no dates selection option.
Only options under the gear icon are: "Show security performance", "Show security performance comparison", and "Historical prices…"
All three just open other windows. there seem to be no settings for this table.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

Disregard examples #2 & #4. It only shows exact same performance for all period for account opened just under a year. So that explains that. But the other examples still apply.

Here's a screenshot.

Note the 1st account in red (it a securities lending account), it's pretty new and currently at zero balance, but it had securities in it for a short while which were moved back out (no buying or selling) but the account earned interest. So how can it have negative returns? Even if the shares dropped while they were in the account, they didn't drop by 93+ percent.

Note the account after that (highlighted). According to quicken itself the current value is higher than the cost basis, so how can it be a loss?

Mark1104

@Vitali Z Coppersmith - go to Reports>Investing>investing Performance - run that report - and see if it provides meaningful results

Jim_Harman

I do not usually use the Average Annual Return chart on the Investing > Performance page because as you have observed the dates and securities are not customizable. The Investment Performance Report (IPR) should explain what you are seeing.

The IRR calculation in the IPR provides annualized results, so in your first example if a security was only in the account for a short time and declined in value, the calculation assumes that that rate would continue for a whole year, resulting in a much larger decline in the IRR. It may be confusing, but the reported numbers are identical for 1, 3, and 5 years because that is the result of the IRR calculation. [edited] Quicken reports "N/A" in this table if the value of the account was zero at the beginning of the period.

In your second example, the IRR calculation depends on the beginning and ending values of the account or security and any cash flows during the period. Cost Basis is not part of the calculation.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

You're right. The investment rpeort isd better. but still wileds weid results. Not only does the total Avg. Annualized returns differ from that shown on the other report, but it itself gives different results dependign on what you subtotal by.
Look at this one, for example. l my investments are in mutual funds (and insignificant amount in cash bearing interest) or ETF, which I can only assume it includes in "mutual funds", or else, where are they?

But the table seems to contradict itself. Is it 8.44% or 11.44%?
And not totaling at all gives yet a 3rd figure.

Note that I blacked out the $ figures, but they also don't match. Where are those other funds coming from? I'm using the default report settings except the total-by and dates.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

Interesting. regarding previous comment above with the screenshot. If I total by security type and add the graph, it becomes apparent that it's not showing what is considers "stocks" in the detail, but probably counts them in the total.
And not sure what it considers "stocks" since i don't invest in individual stocks.

Jim_Harman

The table is not contradictory. Unless you classify them differently, Quicken treats ETFs as stocks. You can make a custom security type "ETF" if you want.

To see the overall IRR of your portfolio, select Don't subtotal or hover over the end of the Total IRR line. If you think the report should show the overall IRR when subtotaling, please vote for this Idea post

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7937351/investment-performance-report-should-show-total-irr-when-subtotaling

For a quick look at what is a Stock in your file, go to Investing > Portfolio and select a view that includes all your securities, such as Quotes. Next to Group by: select Security Type.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/comment/20372430#Comment_20372430

yes, that report is better, thanks. And it ironically doesn't entirely agree with the other report. In fact, dependign on what I cvhoose to subtotal by, the total Average Annualized Returns shows different.

As I mentioned in another reply, I already figured example #2, so ignore it.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

Hovering over IRR doesn't do anything.
Not subtotaling gives an over all IRR of 8.58%.
But subtotaling by Security type, for example, gives an overall IRR of 8.94%.

Also, the discrepancy makes sense if it considers ETF to be stock and not mutual funds (not a very good choice, but OK). But then why doesn't it show a lien for them or include it in "other"?

Likewise, by asset class a 10.26% IRR, and seems to skip some classes on the list.

Jim_Harman

Hover over the END of the IRR line (see arrow) to see the total IRR when subtotaling.

What do you mean by "Doesn't show a line item for them"? I made a custom security type for my ETFs and in the Security Details for each ETF I set the Security Type to that.

For me, the Total IRR is the same regardless of what I subtotal by, or if I don't subtotal.

Mark1104

@Vitali Z Coppersmith - if you are questioning what is included in each sub-category, then click the 'report button' which will show you the 'ins and outs' of each sub-category. Be aware that since this is an IRR, the report will show the movement of CASH from the opposite side of the entry, meaning you will see what was bought with cash, what cash was raised from the sale of securities. Reinvestment of dividends will not appear because there is no cash created or consumed - it is a zero. But dividends that are not reinvested does generate cash so that will be reflecfted.

take it slow…it works!

Vitali Z Coppersmith

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/comment/20372616#Comment_20372616

OK, see now what you meant by hovering over the end of the graph, but that shows eyet another different value.

As to some items not showing it's because it was calling ETFs "stocks" (as opposed to mutual funds which it calls mutual funds). so that clears that up.

I think I'm startgin to decode it slowly. part of the problem is their language choices, rounding, and the choice to not show a total at the bottom of each table (unless you do the "don't subtotal), but using terminology whic makes it sound like they are totalling.
For example, separating ETF and Mutual Funds, but calling one what it is and the other "stocks" (like they aren't all stocks).
Or putting "Asset Mixture" at bottom of the "By Asset Class" table which make sit look like a combined total, which theyprobably mean investments into mixed class assets, and there is no total.
Or rounding it to nearest integer when you hover over graph (says 9%), but to two decimals on the table.
Not the most intuitive design.

Jim_Harman

Yeah that is the point of my Idea post requesting that they include the total IRR at the bottom of the report when it is subtotaled

Vitali Z Coppersmith

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/comment/20372629#Comment_20372629

voted.

re. your suggestion of creating custom ETF class - Since it would have been a lot of work to change each ETF I ever invested into and since I don't do individual stocks anyway (for now), I cheated by just renaming the Stock security type from "Stocks" into "ETF", just so I don't have to remember that's what's actually in there.
of course it still thinks of them as stocks and will probably mixed them if I ever do individual stocks, but hopefully it'll work until then.

What an oversight by Quicken to not have a Mutual Funds, but not ETF security type.

Jim_Harman

When Quicken was originally developed ETFs did not exist. If you are using Quicken to track your asset allocation, it is good to set up and use an ETF security type for them, because Stocks can only have one asset class, not a mixture.

One use of Security types is that some securities have different attributes and settings. Bonds have maturity dates, mutual funds have Morningstar ratings for example. Stocks and Bonds can only have a single asset class. The Market Index type is also special because you are not allowed to own that type.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/comment/20372633#Comment_20372633

So you're saying not to simply rename stocks ETFs but actually create the new ETF class and reclassify all of mine?

I'm assuming if I do I will also have to manually change PF every time he gets creative because it sounds like by default quick and classify som stocks.

Jim_Harman

I don't think you should rename the built-in "Stock" security type. I think you should create a new "ETF" rope and reclassify your ETFs to that.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

<When Quicken was originally developed ETFs did not exist.>

yeah, but isn't why we're paying them a forced "subscription" fee every year? To keep it up to date?
I have the latest 2023 version. ETF have been out for years.

Mark1104

@Vitali Z Coppersmith - the issue is not that simple. Quicken receives the information from its data provider, Intuit. If Intuit is not able / willing to determine from its sources which are mutual funds and which are ETFs, then Quicken is left with a massive ongoing manual effort to keep track of this.

Quicken is not the aggregator of the data, they are simply the conduit.

Jim_Harman

The issue is not distinguishing between MFs and ETFs it is between Stocks and ETFs. Whatever service looks up the ticker symbols apparently does not know the difference or Quicken ignores that info.

It would be nice if Quicken had a built-in Type for ETFs because Stocks can only have one asset class and ETFs often have a mixture.

Vitali Z Coppersmith

Interesting. So quicken is off the hook. But it's still interesting that whoever provides that information still hasn't caught on after all these years.

Though since quicken is no longer part of Intuit I would guess that it's not into it who provides this information unless you actually know otherwise. But hardly relevant or helpful to us either way.

Jim_Harman

Per this discussion

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7887359/etfs-in-quicken

given the currently available security types, it is best to set the Type for ETFs to Mutual Fund. I still think it would be better if there was an ETF Type that was a cross between a stock and a mutual fund.

q_lurker

@Jim_Harman I am curious what you find lacking when setting up ETFs as type = Mutual Fund. What would be different with your suggested cross-over ETF type?

Mark1104

I guess what I also don't understand in this EFT and Mutual Fund discussion is whether that is the right discussion?

isn't what really matters is the asset class? don't you want to see the relative performance of assets in different classes?

Aren't mutual funds and ETF similar in that they are both baskets of securities? the legal structure may be different (which makes ETFs more popular), but otherwise, why do I care to separate mutual funds from ETFs?