Reset Average Cost...

Setting aside the debate over how average cost should be measured....

I'd like it to reset if I hold 0 stocks in something.

For example if I go short on something and then I close off my position fully for whatever reason. Later on, after a large price spike I might then decide I want to short some more...

The average cost will show the costs involved in trade all of the stocks... But I'm interested in the current batch. This might not concern many people but I find that the average cost figure becomes entirely useless in this scenario...

This comes down to personal preference I think. Can't please everyone.

How average cost should be measured is open to personal preference sure...

But if you hold no stocks and buy some I feel it should be treated as an independent event.

If you go buy a new stock now that you have never held before and the average cost of trading was completely out because the system thought you had traded them before then it would be useless.

Once you trade back to 0 stocks all profits or losses have been realised and shouldn't factor into future trades on that stock.... Just my opinion I guess.

Thats what I'm saying, if I jump back into a stock I like to see the history. Especially if you accidentally got closed out of the stock when switching from short to long.

Net result is that clearly the current presentation of information relating to average costs is suiting some people and totally not serving the needs of others.

Maybe we can't please everybody, but it seems relatively straightforward to please the majority of those who have taken part in this discussion.
Can we please have a facility (as an alternative, or in addition to the existing facility) that displays average cost of stocks currently held, zeroing on realisation.

I am with spartan & others who find the current avge cost calculation largely useless for practical purposes.

There a lot of people that want different things, with different requests for ways to measure costs.... Regardless of if average cost includes trading gains and loss or is a simple weighted average.

My main point is that 0 stocks should cost $0

Once gains and losses have been realised I feel the calculation should reset.

Artist is right. We've had this argument 5 or 6 or 7 times now on a variety of different threads. Every time the conclusion is that some like things the way they are and some don't and some don't care.

Unless there is overwhelming agreement on change (and there isn't) then shouldn't we stick with the status quo?

I wonder if it is possible to have an option to reset the average cost for a selected stock? By selecting this option / clicking the box, those that are dissatisfied with the current method can have the average cost for a stock recalculated based on the last transaction(s) necessary to get to the current holding.

So for those of us who do like the history we can keep it....and for those who don't they can elect to reset it. However, this assumes the value is held / stored against a contract holding and not recalculated dynamically every time the portfolio page is refreshed....I'm not that close to it.

@ManOnTheCliff

Regarding this comment: "Maybe we can't please everybody, but it seems relatively straightforward to please the majority of those who have taken part in this discussion."

I don't mean to say anything negative but............no. What is the quorom for making such a vote? Is iPredict a democracy? How do you know the needs / desires of those who have not partaken in the discussion and/or those who do not read the forums? I acknowledge there is some dissatisfaction with the cuirrent method (although I am a supporter of it), but this is squeaky wheel stuff unless the conversation attracts users other than the half dozen of us who are suitably motivated and sufficiently opinionated to regularly post their support for or against the average cost method.

andrew93 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ManOnTheCliff
>
> Regarding this comment: "Maybe we can't please
> everybody, but it seems relatively straightforward
> to please the majority of those who have taken
> part in this discussion."
>
> I don't mean to say anything negative
> but............no. What is the quorom for making
> such a vote?

Voting? What are you drinking? It's a Feature Requests thread. I offered a suggested solution to conflicting requests. There seem to be two camps who have voiced concerns: those who prefer the current system & those who aren't getting the information they'd like. Suggestion: add an extra option so that both camps get what they find useful. Hardly a call to overthrow the emperor. A variant on the option you've just suggested in fact.
And if there is a bunch of silent sufferers whose views aren't represented in the discussion, maybe they could whisper their needs and the college of minds could identify a way to solve their issues as well.

Been a rough week?;-)

Ha! Not at all and I'm stone cold sober. The irony / sarcasm of my quorum comment seems to have been lost on you.....I'm not into claiming a majority when so few people from this website have contributed to the thread.

I too have put up a number of suggestions and it is good to have debate on this topic. I would like to see options, not change for the sake of change when we don't know the position of the majority of members.

[Edited typos]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2010 07:33PM by andrew93.

Ahh... sober's the problem... So often the case. Me too. Just as well the weekend's here.
The majority I was referring to was the majority of posts on this thread. It was an observation more than a claim... as in "the majority of posts on this thread to date seem to fall into one of two camps: they either like the present system, or would like to see average cost zeroed on clearing stock"
(I confess, I didn't actually count them, but if there was a contract, I wouldn't put any money on the majority being Other)

...so it seemed pretty simple to satisfy "the majority of those who have taken part in this discussion"... Allow both options... "a facility (as an alternative, or in addition to the existing facility)"... such as "an option to reset the average cost for a selected stock". (Excellent idea. Give that man the rest of the week off. Wish I'd thought of it myself.)

Unfortunately, as I made that suggestion when I was sober, somehow we ended up in a discussion about a quorom and voting and democracies. Clearly a demonstration of the need for more drinking in the work place.
But... sigh... some cultures are just so hard to change.

No sweat.....

Based on the various threads so far, I believe the options presented so far include:

1) having multiple methods and displaying the various methods on the portfolio page;

2) having a user-defined option as to which method/s is/are displayed;

3) using another valuation method (e.g. LIFO, FIFO, clearing the average cost when crossing through zero etc.), and

4) the latest suggestion of manually resetting the average cost for selected stocks.

Other than going round in circles saying the same things over and over, what we have identified so far is that different people have different needs, differing methods all have things that don't work in certain situations and a variety of reasons as to why the suggestions can not be implemented.

If we could come up with a suggestion to which there wasn't a single objection, then the problem (of not satisfying everyone) can be solved - we just haven't seen that suggestion yet. Does such a solution exist? Practically speaking I think the answer is no.

Do we know how this is done on other prediction websites?

[Edit] Have I missed any other options that have been discussed?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2010 10:10PM by andrew93.

andrew93 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No sweat.....
>
> Based on the various threads so far, I believe the
> options presented so far include:
>
> 1) having multiple methods and displaying the
> various methods on the portfolio page;
>
> 2) having a user-defined option as to which
> method/s is/are displayed;
>
> 3) using another valuation method (e.g. LIFO,
> FIFO, clearing the average cost when crossing
> through zero etc.), and
>
> 4) the latest suggestion of manually resetting the
> average cost for selected stocks.
>
> Other than going round in circles saying the same
> things over and over, what we have identified so
> far is that different people have different needs,
> differing methods all have things that don't work
> in certain situations and a variety of reasons as
> to why the suggestions can not be implemented.
>
> If we could come up with a suggestion to which
> there wasn't a single objection, then the problem
> (of not satisfying everyone) can be solved - we
> just haven't seen that suggestion yet. Does such
> a solution exist? Practically speaking I think
> the answer is no.
>
> Do we know how this is done on other prediction
> websites?
>
> Have I missed any other options that have been
> discussed?

Come on Andrew, you say "If we could come up with a suggestion to which
there wasn't a single objection". What rational objection is there to item 2 in your post "2) having a user-defined option as to which method/s is/are displayed; "?

If the option is user definable surely, there can be no objection by the user for what said user chooses for their own use.

An objector to such a suggestion would be iPredict based on limited budgets and development, which IIRC has been the case. I had spelt that out in my first draft but removed that when I laid out my post in bullet points. I can imagine there would be no objections from the users, whereas iPredict is a different matter.

[Edit] But I agree it is the best solution for the users.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/06/2010 09:20AM by andrew93.

Maybe just a simple excel/spreadsheet export option of the trading history would suffice, so those so inclined can make their own templates of trading performance.

This is an issue that is, obviously, causing quite a bit of vexation for a number of members. A single, user definable column would remedy this very well. As I have no experience in the development such things, I have no idea of how easy or hard these issues are and have no idea of the cost as well.

My personal preference is for a single, toggle enabled column, so the user can switch from average to zero restart cost and back at will. A sortable history would, I believe, be a considerable help as well.

Given the amount of angst this is causing I believe it is important for that it receives some urgent attention or, at the very least, an explanation from iPredict as to why not.

It is clearly time for iPredict to speak.

ORACLE Wrote:
> A
> sortable history would, I believe, be a
> considerable help as well.

Agree 100%.

TraderV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe just a simple excel/spreadsheet export
> option of the trading history would suffice, so
> those so inclined can make their own templates of
> trading performance.
>

I think that is what most of us (who are interested) do anyway.

Not a big deal if you started within sight of beginning trading, but trying to do it one page at a time through hundreds of pages would not be fun, and IPredict seems to have this fixation on forcing you to look at things in 'pages' of lengths they determine.

An export to CSV (say) would be great though.

Alan.

ORACLE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is an issue that is, obviously, causing quite
> a bit of vexation for a number of members. A
> single, user definable column would remedy this
> very well. As I have no experience in the
> development such things, I have no idea of how
> easy or hard these issues are and have no idea of
> the cost as well.
>
> My personal preference is for a single, toggle
> enabled column, so the user can switch from
> average to zero restart cost and back at will. A
> sortable history would, I believe, be a
> considerable help as well.
>
> Given the amount of angst this is causing I
> believe it is important for that it receives some
> urgent attention or, at the very least, an
> explanation from iPredict as to why not.
>
> It is clearly time for iPredict to speak.
>

Well said Sir!

Alan.

Quote
ORACLE
It is clearly time for iPredict to speak.

I rather suspect that iPredict would say something along the lines of, "There aren't enough hours in the day to do all the things we want to do, let alone the things you guys want, and we aren't getting paid the big bucks we were promised in CS101. Also, we don't make any money off the super-advanced traders on the public iPredict site."

Spoilsport!

Surely pipe42, the best way to get this out of the way, is to resolve it. Without being resolved it won't go away refer Law of Squeaky Wheel 101.

Agreed, at some points I have had a negative average cost. Which just isn't practical in any way

ORACLE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Given the amount of angst this is causing I
> believe it is important for that it receives some
> urgent attention or, at the very least, an
> explanation from iPredict as to why not.
>
> It is clearly time for iPredict to speak.

The most frustrating thing about all of this is that not only are there no moves to resolve it, there is not even a response from iPredict.

Admin has posted about it elsewhere saying that the current arrangement was in response to user requests (I'm guessing quite early on).

The Gain/Loss column is based on the current price vs your average price, so with average price going negative or over 1, the Gain/Loss column effectively shows you your lifetime gain or loss on each individual stock.

There is some logic in doing it this way, but I'd say there's probably more logic in resetting it once your position is cleared. I mean if you're negative on a stock and close your position, you know that you've just crystallised your paper losses into actual losses; you don't need to be reminded of this a couple of months later if you choose to enter the contract again.

This was included in the "rank your top features to be implemented" poll and IIRC received a rather high ranking, but very few of the features requested via that list have eventuated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2011 03:42PM by Lanthanide.