Thanks @dtslvr

I updated the teste accordingly.

We can list the dividend separately, but I would already expect it in the "Absolute Asset Performance".
But your input had me thinking of something else, the holding detail:

There the "Change" and "Change with currency effect" should be change to something like "Total Return" and "Total Return with currency effect".
Change is rather related to price changes and total return is accepted as word for all returns relating to the asset (incl. sell and dividends)

Let me know what you think and if I should adapt the overal performance as well.

We can list the dividend separately, but I would already expect it in the "Absolute Asset Performance".

The (Absolute) Asset Performance label is indeed not an ideal label. What about:

• Capital Gains
  • %
• Dividend Income
  • %
• Currency Exchange Effect
  • %

• Total Return
  • %

There the "Change" and "Change with currency effect" should be change to something like "Total Return" and "Total Return with currency effect".

What about "Total Return" / "Total Return with currency effect" and "Total Return (%)" / "Total Return with currency effect (%)" in the holding detail dialog?

Hi @dtslvr

Please excuse my late reply.

Sounds better, but instead of dividend income we should use something like Realized Profit/Loss, which includes sells as well.
But then it gets kind of complicated for the % calculation.
Do you have an idea?

Edit: Complicated in the sense of what to use as basis. It should be the same over all 3 values and this would be total investments without reducing it by the sells.

Hi @dtslvr

Again please excuse my late reply, had some busy weeks.

I revisted the theoretical performance calculation, meaning I have not yet checked the code on how to implement it as I wanted your inputs first.

The idea of splitting up the absolut net asset performance good, I would nonetheless go with realized and unrealized gains/losses.
Realized include all gains/losses from sold assets and dividends and unrealized includes the performance of the yet hold assets compared to their purchase price.

I currently face a problem with the relative performance, respectively the cost basis to use.
Assuming the following scenario:
Buying 4 stocks @ 25, it raises to 40 you sell 1, it raises to 50

Calculating the P/Ls would lead to:

• Unrealized 75 ( current holding * (current price - initial price) --> 3 * (50-25))
• Realized 15 (sold holding * (sell price - initial price) --> 1 * (40-25))
• Total 90 (sum of the above)

For the relative performance we need to have a cost basis to calculate against.
The simplest would be the total investment, as it bests reflects the total return on ones investment.

The problem is the unrealized P/L does not correctly refelct the price change of the underlying asset. Whilst the asset price doubled, the unrealized P/L only has a performance of 75%.

I checked yahoo finance how they handle it and the use different cost basis for the different P/L calculation, but do not show a total performance value.
For unrealized P/L they use the cost basis of the shares left, in the case above this would be 75 (shares left * initial price --> 3*75).

I would go with the first approach not correctly reflecting the price change, as it accounts for all performance of a portfolio.

Whats your take on this? Or would you even choose a totally different approach?

Many thanks for your feedback and kind regards