reconciling different performance numbers

ok - after using Quicken for years,
I've been clicking on the mutual fund entries (and stocks)
to bring up the web page (Quicken uses Yahoo financial)
to chart the fund (and stocks) and look at various details.

Why do the performance numbers never match anything
between my Quicken file, the Yahoo page, and the actual fund page

ie - TRowe New Horizons mutual fund

My Quicken shows 17% for 1 year

Yahoo = 21% / 29% / 7% (trailing returns for 1, 3, 5yr)

Yahoo = 11% / 17% / 49% (annualized returns for 1, 3, 5yr)

TRowe = 11% / 25% / 7% (for 1, 3, 5yr)

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Please post to one group at a time, thanks.




"Phil Schuman" <> wrote in message
news:4U%Pf.28208$
> ok - after using Quicken for years,
> I've been clicking on the mutual fund entries (and stocks)
> to bring up the web page (Quicken uses Yahoo financial)
> to chart the fund (and stocks) and look at various details.
>
> Why do the performance numbers never match anything
> between my Quicken file, the Yahoo page, and the actual fund page
>
> ie - TRowe New Horizons mutual fund
>
> My Quicken shows 17% for 1 year
>
> Yahoo = 21% / 29% / 7% (trailing returns for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
> Yahoo = 11% / 17% / 49% (annualized returns for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
> TRowe = 11% / 25% / 7% (for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
>
>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

You have to know the assumptions used.
eg steady investing, lump sum, reinvested gains, investing costs, etc

arthur
==

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:05:20 GMT, "Phil Schuman"
<> wrote:

>ok - after using Quicken for years,
>I've been clicking on the mutual fund entries (and stocks)
>to bring up the web page (Quicken uses Yahoo financial)
>to chart the fund (and stocks) and look at various details.
>
>Why do the performance numbers never match anything
>between my Quicken file, the Yahoo page, and the actual fund page
>
>ie - TRowe New Horizons mutual fund
>
>My Quicken shows 17% for 1 year
>
>Yahoo = 21% / 29% / 7% (trailing returns for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
>Yahoo = 11% / 17% / 49% (annualized returns for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
>TRowe = 11% / 25% / 7% (for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

You have to know the assumptions used.
eg steady investing, lump sum, reinvested gains, investing costs, etc

arthur
==

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 20:05:20 GMT, "Phil Schuman"
<> wrote:

>ok - after using Quicken for years,
>I've been clicking on the mutual fund entries (and stocks)
>to bring up the web page (Quicken uses Yahoo financial)
>to chart the fund (and stocks) and look at various details.
>
>Why do the performance numbers never match anything
>between my Quicken file, the Yahoo page, and the actual fund page
>
>ie - TRowe New Horizons mutual fund
>
>My Quicken shows 17% for 1 year
>
>Yahoo = 21% / 29% / 7% (trailing returns for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
>Yahoo = 11% / 17% / 49% (annualized returns for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
>TRowe = 11% / 25% / 7% (for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

First, the numbers are calculated accurately. Therefore the error is in the
data. The easiest way to track down the discrepancies is to start with a one
year number. One year returns are incredibly easy to calculate (eg, you invested
$1000, a year later you had $1100, therefore your return is 10%), and no
annualizing is involved.

You say Yahoo shows a 21% trailing return for one year, and an 11% annualized
return for one year. A one year return for any investment, whether it's
annualized, trailing, total or whatever else they want to call it will always be
the same. Therefore you must be comparing different funds or different time
periods.

After you have the correct fund for the correct time period, any other
difference in returns will be caused by cash flow. Published returns assume no
cash flow for the period (ie, you bought at the beginning of the period, kept it
for the entire period, and sold at the end). Life, of course, is seldom that
simple. Any deposits or withdrawals that you made from a fund will render your
actual return different from published returns.

Does this help?

--
Regards,
Fred


"Phil Schuman" <> wrote in message
news:4U%Pf.28208$
> ok - after using Quicken for years,
> I've been clicking on the mutual fund entries (and stocks)
> to bring up the web page (Quicken uses Yahoo financial)
> to chart the fund (and stocks) and look at various details.
>
> Why do the performance numbers never match anything
> between my Quicken file, the Yahoo page, and the actual fund page
>
> ie - TRowe New Horizons mutual fund
>
> My Quicken shows 17% for 1 year
>
> Yahoo = 21% / 29% / 7% (trailing returns for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
> Yahoo = 11% / 17% / 49% (annualized returns for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
> TRowe = 11% / 25% / 7% (for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
>
>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

First, the numbers are calculated accurately. Therefore the error is in the
data. The easiest way to track down the discrepancies is to start with a one
year number. One year returns are incredibly easy to calculate (eg, you invested
$1000, a year later you had $1100, therefore your return is 10%), and no
annualizing is involved.

You say Yahoo shows a 21% trailing return for one year, and an 11% annualized
return for one year. A one year return for any investment, whether it's
annualized, trailing, total or whatever else they want to call it will always be
the same. Therefore you must be comparing different funds or different time
periods.

After you have the correct fund for the correct time period, any other
difference in returns will be caused by cash flow. Published returns assume no
cash flow for the period (ie, you bought at the beginning of the period, kept it
for the entire period, and sold at the end). Life, of course, is seldom that
simple. Any deposits or withdrawals that you made from a fund will render your
actual return different from published returns.

Does this help?

--
Regards,
Fred


"Phil Schuman" <> wrote in message
news:4U%Pf.28208$
> ok - after using Quicken for years,
> I've been clicking on the mutual fund entries (and stocks)
> to bring up the web page (Quicken uses Yahoo financial)
> to chart the fund (and stocks) and look at various details.
>
> Why do the performance numbers never match anything
> between my Quicken file, the Yahoo page, and the actual fund page
>
> ie - TRowe New Horizons mutual fund
>
> My Quicken shows 17% for 1 year
>
> Yahoo = 21% / 29% / 7% (trailing returns for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
> Yahoo = 11% / 17% / 49% (annualized returns for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
> TRowe = 11% / 25% / 7% (for 1, 3, 5yr)
>
>
>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Not so fast. One year is composed of 4 quarters during which a
dividend may likely been paid and reinvested. Otoh some might want a
check or ACH distro of that dividend. One account will show a higher
market value although the actual return was the same at the end of
quarter number 1.

a
==

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:19:07 GMT, "Fred Smith" <>
wrote:

>First, the numbers are calculated accurately. Therefore the error is in the
>data. The easiest way to track down the discrepancies is to start with a one
>year number. One year returns are incredibly easy to calculate (eg, you invested
>$1000, a year later you had $1100, therefore your return is 10%), and no
>annualizing is involved.
>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Not so fast. One year is composed of 4 quarters during which a
dividend may likely been paid and reinvested. Otoh some might want a
check or ACH distro of that dividend. One account will show a higher
market value although the actual return was the same at the end of
quarter number 1.

a
==

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:19:07 GMT, "Fred Smith" <>
wrote:

>First, the numbers are calculated accurately. Therefore the error is in the
>data. The easiest way to track down the discrepancies is to start with a one
>year number. One year returns are incredibly easy to calculate (eg, you invested
>$1000, a year later you had $1100, therefore your return is 10%), and no
>annualizing is involved.
>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

"arthur" <> wrote in message
news:
> Not so fast. One year is composed of 4 quarters during which a
> dividend may likely been paid and reinvested. Otoh some might want a
> check or ACH distro of that dividend. One account will show a higher
> market value although the actual return was the same at the end of
> quarter number 1.
>
> a
> ==
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:19:07 GMT, "Fred Smith" <>
> wrote:
>
> >First, the numbers are calculated accurately. Therefore the error is
in the
> >data. The easiest way to track down the discrepancies is to start
with a one
> >year number. One year returns are incredibly easy to calculate (eg,
you invested
> >$1000, a year later you had $1100, therefore your return is 10%), and
no
> >annualizing is involved.
> >

bottom posting - reading.... top to bottom ->
here's the Yahoo link that I use
when Quicken pops up the webpage
for say the T.Rowe New Horizons fund -

<>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

"arthur" <> wrote in message
news:
> Not so fast. One year is composed of 4 quarters during which a
> dividend may likely been paid and reinvested. Otoh some might want a
> check or ACH distro of that dividend. One account will show a higher
> market value although the actual return was the same at the end of
> quarter number 1.
>
> a
> ==
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:19:07 GMT, "Fred Smith" <>
> wrote:
>
> >First, the numbers are calculated accurately. Therefore the error is
in the
> >data. The easiest way to track down the discrepancies is to start
with a one
> >year number. One year returns are incredibly easy to calculate (eg,
you invested
> >$1000, a year later you had $1100, therefore your return is 10%), and
no
> >annualizing is involved.
> >

bottom posting - reading.... top to bottom ->
here's the Yahoo link that I use
when Quicken pops up the webpage
for say the T.Rowe New Horizons fund -

<>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Arthur,

I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in answers to your questions. If all
you want to do is rant, I'll get out of your way.

Reinvested dividends have no effect on rate of return.

Yes, a year has four quarters. It also has 12 months and 365 days, none of which
is germane to an annual rate of return.

--
Regards,
Fred


"arthur" <> wrote in message
news:
> Not so fast. One year is composed of 4 quarters during which a
> dividend may likely been paid and reinvested. Otoh some might want a
> check or ACH distro of that dividend. One account will show a higher
> market value although the actual return was the same at the end of
> quarter number 1.
>
> a
> ==
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:19:07 GMT, "Fred Smith" <>
> wrote:
>
>>First, the numbers are calculated accurately. Therefore the error is in the
>>data. The easiest way to track down the discrepancies is to start with a one
>>year number. One year returns are incredibly easy to calculate (eg, you
>>invested
>>$1000, a year later you had $1100, therefore your return is 10%), and no
>>annualizing is involved.
>>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Arthur,

I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in answers to your questions. If all
you want to do is rant, I'll get out of your way.

Reinvested dividends have no effect on rate of return.

Yes, a year has four quarters. It also has 12 months and 365 days, none of which
is germane to an annual rate of return.

--
Regards,
Fred


"arthur" <> wrote in message
news:
> Not so fast. One year is composed of 4 quarters during which a
> dividend may likely been paid and reinvested. Otoh some might want a
> check or ACH distro of that dividend. One account will show a higher
> market value although the actual return was the same at the end of
> quarter number 1.
>
> a
> ==
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:19:07 GMT, "Fred Smith" <>
> wrote:
>
>>First, the numbers are calculated accurately. Therefore the error is in the
>>data. The easiest way to track down the discrepancies is to start with a one
>>year number. One year returns are incredibly easy to calculate (eg, you
>>invested
>>$1000, a year later you had $1100, therefore your return is 10%), and no
>>annualizing is involved.
>>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

"Fred Smith" <> wrote

> Reinvested dividends have no effect on rate of return.
>
> Yes, a year has four quarters. It also has 12 months and 365 days, none of
> which is germane to an annual rate of return.

Are you going to finish weaving that basket today?

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

"Fred Smith" <> wrote

> Reinvested dividends have no effect on rate of return.
>
> Yes, a year has four quarters. It also has 12 months and 365 days, none of
> which is germane to an annual rate of return.

Are you going to finish weaving that basket today?

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Who said I have questions?

You blame the percent variances on data. Yes it obviously is (must
be) but that does not mean data in error.

You obviously can not or do not want to explain "Annualized",
"Trailing", Compounded, and other time periods and methods of
computing returns.

a
==

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:17:40 GMT, "Fred Smith" <>
wrote:
>Arthur,
>
>I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in answers to your questions. If all
>you want to do is rant, I'll get out of your way.
>
>Reinvested dividends have no effect on rate of return.
>
>Yes, a year has four quarters. It also has 12 months and 365 days, none of which
>is germane to an annual rate of return.

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Who said I have questions?

You blame the percent variances on data. Yes it obviously is (must
be) but that does not mean data in error.

You obviously can not or do not want to explain "Annualized",
"Trailing", Compounded, and other time periods and methods of
computing returns.

a
==

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:17:40 GMT, "Fred Smith" <>
wrote:
>Arthur,
>
>I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in answers to your questions. If all
>you want to do is rant, I'll get out of your way.
>
>Reinvested dividends have no effect on rate of return.
>
>Yes, a year has four quarters. It also has 12 months and 365 days, none of which
>is germane to an annual rate of return.

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Fred Smith wrote:
> Arthur,
>
> I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in answers to your questions. If all
> you want to do is rant, I'll get out of your way.
>

fred:

arthur, who calls himself "us," has a few emotional problems.

Trading stock did not make him as happy as he thought it would.

the sarp
Post Count 2,345,888, 101

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Fred Smith wrote:
> Arthur,
>
> I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in answers to your questions. If all
> you want to do is rant, I'll get out of your way.
>

fred:

arthur, who calls himself "us," has a few emotional problems.

Trading stock did not make him as happy as he thought it would.

the sarp
Post Count 2,345,888, 101

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

wrote:

>Fred Smith wrote:
>
>
>>Arthur,
>>
>>I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in answers to your questions. If all
>>you want to do is rant, I'll get out of your way.
>>
>>
>>
>
>fred:
>
>arthur, who calls himself "us," has a few emotional problems.
>
>
He doesn't have many compared to you who it seams has the market on
insanity cornered.

>Trading stock did not make him as happy as he thought it would.
>
>the sarp
>Post Count 2,345,888, 101
>
>
>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

wrote:

>Fred Smith wrote:
>
>
>>Arthur,
>>
>>I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in answers to your questions. If all
>>you want to do is rant, I'll get out of your way.
>>
>>
>>
>
>fred:
>
>arthur, who calls himself "us," has a few emotional problems.
>
>
He doesn't have many compared to you who it seams has the market on
insanity cornered.

>Trading stock did not make him as happy as he thought it would.
>
>the sarp
>Post Count 2,345,888, 101
>
>
>

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Arthur,

I can explain investment returns. Google "A dissertation on Quicken's IRR" or
follow this link:
's+irr&rnum=1&hl=en#135adb47e75b979d

However, I'm not willing to invest time on people who aren't willing to listen.
As I said in my first reply, your problem is you believe the calculations are
wrong. My bet is the data is wrong. Once you accept that the calculations are
done correctly, you'll find it a lot easier to track down the problem.

Alternatively, give us your data, and I'll show you how Quicken is calculating
your IRR, and how it compares with publicly available numbers.

--
Regards,
Fred


"arthur" <> wrote in message
news:
> Who said I have questions?
>
> You blame the percent variances on data. Yes it obviously is (must
> be) but that does not mean data in error.
>
> You obviously can not or do not want to explain "Annualized",
> "Trailing", Compounded, and other time periods and methods of
> computing returns.
>
> a
> ==
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:17:40 GMT, "Fred Smith" <>
> wrote:
>>Arthur,
>>
>>I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in answers to your questions. If all
>>you want to do is rant, I'll get out of your way.
>>
>>Reinvested dividends have no effect on rate of return.
>>
>>Yes, a year has four quarters. It also has 12 months and 365 days, none of
>>which
>>is germane to an annual rate of return.

Re: reconciling different performance numbers

Arthur,

I can explain investment returns. Google "A dissertation on Quicken's IRR" or
follow this link:
's+irr&rnum=1&hl=en#135adb47e75b979d

However, I'm not willing to invest time on people who aren't willing to listen.
As I said in my first reply, your problem is you believe the calculations are
wrong. My bet is the data is wrong. Once you accept that the calculations are
done correctly, you'll find it a lot easier to track down the problem.

Alternatively, give us your data, and I'll show you how Quicken is calculating
your IRR, and how it compares with publicly available numbers.

--
Regards,
Fred


"arthur" <> wrote in message
news:
> Who said I have questions?
>
> You blame the percent variances on data. Yes it obviously is (must
> be) but that does not mean data in error.
>
> You obviously can not or do not want to explain "Annualized",
> "Trailing", Compounded, and other time periods and methods of
> computing returns.
>
> a
> ==
>
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 23:17:40 GMT, "Fred Smith" <>
> wrote:
>>Arthur,
>>
>>I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in answers to your questions. If all
>>you want to do is rant, I'll get out of your way.
>>
>>Reinvested dividends have no effect on rate of return.
>>
>>Yes, a year has four quarters. It also has 12 months and 365 days, none of
>>which
>>is germane to an annual rate of return.