PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

The perf number is wrong - FGLGX is better than QQQ?

ZW
Zheng Wang22 августа 25 Π³. | ΠžΠΏΡƒΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΎ Π² ΠžΠ±Ρ‰Π°Ρ
5 ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ‚Π°Ρ€ΠΈΠ΅Π²
3 ΠΎΡ‚Π²Π΅Ρ‚Π°

Π‘ΠΎΡ€Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ‚ΡŒ ΠΏΠΎ

DS
Dmitry Shevchenko22 августа 25 Π³.

A lot depends on how you define β€œbetter”.

That said, if there’s anything that seems immediately off, let us know


ZW
Zheng Wang25 августа 25 Π³.
FGLGXβ€˜s performance number on this website is incorrect. It is way higher than it actually is.

ZW
Zheng Wang25 августа 25 Π³.
For example, 5-year performance is 152% here whereas its actual number is 72%.

DS
Dmitry Shevchenko

-9 мСс.

I just did a quick cross-check with data on Yahoo Finance. The adjusted closing price on Aug 25, 2020, was 10.14, and the most recent adjusted close is 25.65, so roughly a 153% increase over the 5-year period. That matches the values we are showing pretty close.

How did you get 72%?


ZW
Zheng Wang25 августа 25 Π³.

I was checking it with Google Finance. It somehow has a different price and performance.

I checked Fidelity website. Their performance number aligns with yours. So Google Finance seem to be incorrect.


DS
Dmitry Shevchenko

-9 мСс.

Yeah, that makes sense, Google Finance is unfortunately not a reliable source. Their data is often missing distributions and split adjustments, or pulled from inconsistent feeds. So their performance numbers can look completely off.

Fidelity’s site and Yahoo Finance both use properly adjusted prices, which is why they line up with what we show. In general, GF is fine for a quick glance, but for anything performance-related it’s mostly garbage.

ZW
Zheng Wang

-9 мСс.

Thanks - good to know that.

JC
Johnson C06 ноября 25 Π³.
Thanks Dmitry for pointing out Google short coming


ΠšΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ
ΠžΠ±Ρ‰Π°Ρ

ΠŸΡ€ΠΎΡΠΌΠΎΡ‚Ρ€Ρ‹
433