Sankar-
Thanks for responding but I'm not sure we're looking at the same program (I
wish I could be sure what I actually have when I say MSN Portfolio, what used
to be 'deluxe' edition). The only difference I see from my program between
price history and investment growth charts is the scale on the left side and
lack of dividend dates on the investment growth chart. Otherwise they lie on
top of each other and there is NO reinvestment of dividends included in the
investment growth chart so they ENTIRELY DISAGREE with the investment growth
charts from Morningstar or the brokerages themselves. I don't have to use
MSN Portfolio graphing to see this problem. Just look up an investment from
MSN Money web page. You will see an investment growth chart that is correct
with a few little words in blue under it "more details". If you hit that you
will get another version of the same investment growth chart that I get from
MSN Portfolio; i.e., it will be wrong, look just like what I'm talking
about, and completely disagree with the previous chart ON THE SAME WEBSITE.
--
Jeffrey Weiss


"Sankar" wrote:

- quote -

The price history chart is not adjusted with dividends distributions (which
is probably something MSN Money should look into).

Their investment growth chart (which is adjusted with dividends) DOES show a
~50% return for 10 years. Is there any chance you are looking at a 5 year
Investment growth chart instead of 10 years?

"JeffWeiss9" wrote:

- quote -

I'VE FOUND THE PROBLEM: ON THE CHARTING FOR MSN PORTFOLIO ("MSN Charting
Control") and the "detailed chart" from the MSN Money web page, when you ask
for "INVESTMENT GROWTH" chart type, they are actually giving you the "PRICE
HISTORY" chart type. Thus, of the 3 chart type choices, in MSN Portfolio
Charting, both PRICE HISTORY and INVESTMENT GROWTH give the same price
history chart. The chart displayed is NOT, in fact, investment growth.
DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO FILE THIS AS A BUG REPORT WITH WHO EVER MAINTAINS
THIS MSN SOFTWARE? (I've been unable to find any way to do that).
Thanks,
Jeff
--
Jeffrey Weiss


"JeffWeiss9" wrote:

- quote -

Yes, 4.37%T annualized for 10 years is +53% total return and that number is
consistent with their 10 year total return graph as well as the Morningstar
10 year total return graph for VCAIX. Yet the MSN Money graph for 10 year
growth, as mentioned above, gives only +17% while, if you click on a 'more
detailed graph', it says there is a significant loss. Clearly MSN Money
information being graphed is inconsistent with itself, as well as
inconsistent with these other sources of the same information.
I get similar inconsistencies with VBIIX, FCNTX or any other of the
holdings in my portfolio. This was pointed out to me when I brought some MSN
Portfolio graphs to a portfolio review by a Vanguard representative.
Somehow the information I'm getting from MSN Portfolio is just plain wrong
and I've either got to find a way to get the correct information into it, or
stop using it after many years of depending on it.




--
Jeffrey Weiss


"Cal Learner-- MVP" wrote:

- quote -

In microsoft.public.money, JeffWeiss9 wrote:

- quote -

It *could* be right if there were a lot of distributions (interest,
dividend, etc) paid by the fund, and if those distributions were
reinvested. VCAIX pays a monthly distribution.

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/fun...FundIntExt=INT
claims a 4.37% gain in the last 10 years; I am thinking that number
is annualized.

Can someone at Microsoft fix the Historical Charts so they are correct. Just
to take one specific example, if I look at the 10-year growth chart for VCAIX
(any stock will do) at
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor...bol=US%3aVCAIX
it tells me the 10 year growth of $10000 to the present time (8/08) is
approximately +17%. However, if I click right under neath that graph on the
link saying "view a more detailed chart", it displays the same chart that I
get directly from MSN Portfolio Tracker showing a LOSS of ~20% FOR THE VERY
SAME STOCK. Clearly, BOTH charts can't be correct. I have no idea which to
believe.
ANy help appreciated or how to get this fixed by Microsoft.
Thanks.
--
Jeffrey Weiss