Average Costs

I realise the subject of the accuracy or otherwise of average costs has been debated elsewhere but (that argument aside for the moment) I think there is a bug with the current version of the average cost displayed on the my portfolio page. I'm seeing a lot of stocks with a nil cost that used to have negative values. Has this been changed to be the maximum of the average cost and zero? Rightly or wrongly, I preferred the old method because an average cost of zero provides me with less information than if the average cost is less than zero. Can you please put this back to how it was?

Thanks



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2010 07:22PM by andrew93.

Have seen the same myself and on this occasion andrew93, I agree with you, zero is of little or no use to adherents of the average system. However, I must point out that it is hardly less useful to you than, the average is to me.

So....you couldn't fail to disagree with me less then?

But seriously, I'm not sure it as less useful to you than zero is to me. Take for instance a point in time where you have made your first transaction on a contract (there is always a first transaction for each contract) then the average cost is *extremely* useful at the point in time immediately after that initial transaction has been completed. Do you not disagree with me more, or less?

An average can be of some point as long as one stays in a stock but, to have that average carried over after clearing and then, later re-entering that stock is, to me, far less than useless. I would sooner have nothing than an average that carries over clearing and re-entering a stock.
After I have cleared a stock, re-entering it is no different to buying into a different stock. For me, clearing a stock is the end of that series of transactions and carrying over the average only muddies the situation.

quote from my first post : "that argument aside for the moment"

Let's focus on the issue which is that the average cost, currently at zero, is broken.

andrew93 there appears to be a lot more wrong at the moment and I'm suspecting the last update.

This thread I have started tonight may interest Something Screwy

I've been watching that stock (I have a small holding) and I'm not seeing the same thing......

Just a heads up on this topic.

We've been cogitating somewhat on this average cost variable. The problem is not so much with the amount itself (it can be -'ve and still be a valid average cost), but with the way it was being used to produce other amounts on that page.

Just now we've manage to find a way to compute the other variables (notably gain/loss) that does not rely on average cost.

This means 2 things;
1. Gain/Loss is going to be more accurate that it was (it will simply be net earnings on that contract + current value of the holding)
2. We can go back to displaying -'ve averages - and not mess up the other amounts.

This change will go in when we do our next release (probably next week sometime)

Thanks. I noticed the gains/loss wasn't correct too but guessed it was a function of the average cost.

Are you also looking at creating a FIFO cost?