investments vs 1y performance display

Posted by P.Schuman on February 22, 2008, 9:22 am

Please log in for more thread options

I've never been able to reconcile the mutual fund performance numbers
displayed by Quicken 2006 vs the numbers from Yahoo
or the mutual fund company themselves....

ie - Fidelity div intl - FDIVX
all divs are re-invested, with no other buy/sell activity since 2000

Why is the Quicken 2006 number for 1y so wacked ???

Quicken portfolio view = Recent Perf pulldown
line item choosen is 12mo %

Quicken Recent Perf 12mo = -5%
Quicken Historic Perf Ann 1y = 1.48%
Quicken Historic Perf An 3y = 15.29%

Yahoo = 4.28% 1y 15.45% 3y

Fidelity = 4.28% 1y 15.45% 3y

--
----------------------------------
"If everything seems to be going well,
you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright

Posted by P.Schuman on February 22, 2008, 9:34 am

Please log in for more thread options

P.Schuman wrote:

> I've never been able to reconcile the mutual fund performance numbers

> displayed by Quicken 2006 vs the numbers from Yahoo

> or the mutual fund company themselves....

> ie - Fidelity div intl - FDIVX

> all divs are re-invested, with no other buy/sell activity since 2000

> Why is the Quicken 2006 number for 1y so wacked ???

> Quicken portfolio view = Recent Perf pulldown

> line item choosen is 12mo %

> Quicken Recent Perf 12mo = -5%

> Quicken Historic Perf Ann 1y = 1.48%

> Quicken Historic Perf An 3y = 15.29%

> Yahoo = 4.28% 1y 15.45% 3y

> Fidelity = 4.28% 1y 15.45% 3y

> Kiplinger = -3% 1y 6% 3y

---->>>> forgot -
this all starts with the Feb issue of Kiplingers magazine of 2008 mutual
fund rankings.

> ----------------------------------

> "If everything seems to be going well,

> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright

Posted by P.Schuman on February 22, 2008, 10:01 am

Please log in for more thread options

>> I've never been able to reconcile the mutual fund performance numbers

>> displayed by Quicken 2006 vs the numbers from Yahoo

>> or the mutual fund company themselves....

>> ie - Fidelity div intl - FDIVX

>> all divs are re-invested, with no other buy/sell activity since 2000

>> Why is the Quicken 2006 number for 1yr so wacked ???

>> Quicken portfolio view = Recent Perf pulldown

>> line item choosen is 12mo %

>> Quicken Recent Perf 12mo = -5%

>> Quicken Historic Perf Annualized 1yr = 1.48%

>> Quicken Historic Perf Annualized 3yr = 15.29%

>> Yahoo = 4.28% 1yr 15.45% 3yr

>> Fidelity = 4.28% 1yr 15.45% 3yr

>> Kiplinger = 16% 1yr 18% 3yr

---->>>> forgot - corrected - sorry all up early & brain not it gear

This all starts with the Feb issue of Kiplingers magazine
of 2008 mutual fund rankings.

How can they have FDIVX listed as 16% for 1yr Annualized Total Return
in Kiplingers,
and Quicken have it for -5% and 1%
while Yahoo and Fidelity are reporting 4.28% ?????

SO - the "performance number" for FDIVX
is anywhere from -5% to 16% for the same year - please explain - ??????

>> ----------------------------------

>> "If everything seems to be going well,

>> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright

Posted by Stubby on February 22, 2008, 2:17 pm

Please log in for more thread options

> SO - the "performance number" for FDIVX

> is anywhere from -5% to 16% for the same year - please explain - ??????

Quicken's percent gain/loss calculation has been broken for many years. The
numbers require you know the price on the day before and the day after the
interval in quesstion, which is wrong but Intuit doesn't care. Do not use
Quicken for investment statistics!

Posted by scott s. on February 22, 2008, 2:46 pm

Please log in for more thread options

>> SO - the "performance number" for FDIVX

>> is anywhere from -5% to 16% for the same year - please explain -

>> ??????

> Quicken's percent gain/loss calculation has been broken for many

> years. The numbers require you know the price on the day before and

> the day after the interval in quesstion, which is wrong but Intuit

> doesn't care. Do not use Quicken for investment statistics!

Agree, It's more-or-less worthless since I started with Quicken
for Windows v3. At one time I had the equations that it used, and
it did seem to apply them correctly, it's just that the formulas
didn't relate to what I considered "performance" such as you get
from other sources. The best metric I find is the ROI but it still
gives strange answers at times. IIRC there used to be an IRR
metric but I think that is now gone? I just don't use Quicken
performance metrics for anything but a gross look so I haven't
kept up with any changes in the last few versions.

scott s.
.

scott s.
.