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; } } }

Growth of $10K Graph impacted by NVDA 7/20/21 split but not Price History Graph

Whojammers

HELP. Pulling my hair out to find root cause. Tried first this summer to no avail. Jumping back in again to address on way or another to make the 10K usable for all my stock growth

Essentially - the 10K report does not correctly handle the 7/20/21 NVDA split but does handle the 6/10/24 split OK

To validate: I tweaked the 10K report to just focus on NVDA. The first graph below shows 10K after the 7/20/21 split. All looks good, including the 6/10/24 split

The second graph is taken before the 7/20/21. As you can see it is markedly off

As recommended earlier in one of the posts noted below, I did go back and validate that the pricing after 7/20/2021 does reflect a 4:1 split. To confirm pricing for both splits is accurately recorded, below is the 5 year price history graph for NVDA which does accurately show both splits (unlike the 10K report)

THis has to be a bug in the 10K Growth report. Otherwise, Im very open to assistance on what could possibly be off that I could adjust

Thanks

Additional background

I ran Data Validate and Repair and well as the Super Validate. None corrected

I also looked at other posts for solutions, but I couldnt find anything. Here is an earlier post with what appears the same issue (unresolved)

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/comment/20440058#Comment_20440058

Also, I opened one in earlier summer that had some great early assistance but guessing they couldn help any further (pushing me to conclude this must be a bug)

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7952054/issues-with-growth-of-10k-dashboard-report-display-error-after-3-year-look-back

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Jim_Harman

Please see this recent discussion, which reports the same issue with several Schwab ETFs which split recently

https://community.quicken.com/discussion/7957111/growth-of-10-000-after-schwab-etf-splits-10-11-2024

It turns out there there is a bug in the Growth of $10,000 calculation that causes it to present wrong results if the graph includes a security that has split more than once in the analysis period.

Please contact Quicken Support to report this issue and also use the Help > Report a Problem link to submit the issue electronically. In your submission, be as clear and thorough as possible. Reference the ticket number and provide a link to this discussion. Provide step by step instructions to reproduce the problem. They will not pay much attention to a problem unless they can replicate it in house.

You will not get a response to an electronic submission, but apparently they review and prioritize the submissions and use the data to help resolve problems they decide to work on. The more reports they receive the better.

And congratulations on picking Nvidia.

Whojammers

Jim

Greatly appreciate your assistance (now and earlier). Helps confirm I’m not going crazy and there is an apparent bug in the report.

Thanks for highlighting the other posts and the likely cause being more than one split in the reporting period

I am following your guidance on how to submit the issue to the appropriate teams. I will be through

thanks again for the quick answer

Jim_Harman

No problem. The issues with the Growth of $10,000 graph have been on my list of pet peeves for several years now but I have not had much success in getting them resolved.

I hope you meant "thorough" and not "through"!

Whojammers

Submitted with details. Lets see if this helps. Appreciate the follow up and guidance. Good to know its not me.

And yes, a typo. I did mean "thorough."

Whojammers

Long talk with Support and, as expected, they could not resolve through a variety of methods. Its a bug in the $10K growth report. Here is my case number for the report #11365143. Also reporting a problem in the application as you suggested and referencing the case number