reconciling different performance numbers
# reconciling different performance numbers

am 09.03.2006 21:05:20 von Phil Schuman
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

am 09.03.2006 21:11:57 von Ed
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

am 09.03.2006 22:43:06 von Arthur
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

am 09.03.2006 22:43:06 von Arthur
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

am 10.03.2006 04:19:07 von Fred Smith
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

am 10.03.2006 04:19:07 von Fred Smith
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

am 10.03.2006 05:48:44 von Arthur
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

am 10.03.2006 05:48:44 von Arthur
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

am 10.03.2006 17:03:42 von Phil Schuman
"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

am 10.03.2006 17:03:42 von Phil Schuman
"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

am 11.03.2006 00:17:40 von Fred Smith
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

am 11.03.2006 00:17:40 von Fred Smith
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

am 11.03.2006 00:40:36 von Ed
"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

am 11.03.2006 00:40:36 von Ed
"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

am 11.03.2006 10:17:35 von Arthur
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

am 11.03.2006 10:17:35 von Arthur
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

am 12.03.2006 13:48:23 von the_sarp
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

am 12.03.2006 13:48:23 von the_sarp
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

am 12.03.2006 19:05:43 von Don S
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

am 12.03.2006 19:05:43 von Don S
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

am 13.03.2006 00:03:40 von Fred Smith
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

am 13.03.2006 00:40:27 von Fred Smith
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.