|
Post by Broozer on Apr 3, 2023 14:07:55 GMT
Bruzer said “total gain/loss” in the thread title. But now mentions “total return”. I get it now. It’s 2 different things. @bruzer, I agree the research section has declined. It is amazing to me that so many programmers need to be employed making changes just because… Well no, I meant it to be the same thing. We often forget that sometimes the market goes down and stays down for some time so I put the "loss" in there also.
If you want to see how well your portfolio is doing compared to a benchmark of your choosing, you need to know the "total return," which of course may mean "loss" also. "Change," as Schwab shows on summary page, as I previously noted, is not "return/total return/gain-loss." To me, "return" means "total return," which is the number you need to see how well your PF is doing compared to some benchmark. From Investopedia: This discussion is all good but per my OP, Schwab gives me my total return so I don't care about having to figure that out. They used to give it for my entire portfolio but no longer do, they only give each account separately since last fall. My OP was about how to WEIGHT those two numbers into one.
|
|
|
Post by Broozer on Apr 3, 2023 14:33:58 GMT
Bruzer said “total gain/loss” in the thread title. But now mentions “total return”. I get it now. It’s 2 different things. @bruzer, I agree the research section has declined. It is amazing to me that so many programmers need to be employed making changes just because…I forgot your red part. I've been bitching since the mid-90s about this. Software/web designers have some mental defect where they think people like change, just for the sake of change. Some of it may be a sense job security. In general, humans, along with most animals, are "creatures of habit."
Rarely does any change help the actual end user. Functions that most people like are taken away, moved, or hidden. They think a brand-new interface is always "good." No, it isn't. Do the security changes and other stuff as needed but stop destroying the interface. Ninety percent of programmers should be fired, maybe then the nonsense would stop. There was one exception to this in my life. It was the machining software (CAM) I used when I was working. Changes were usually for the better and they didn't re-do the interface just because they felt like it.
The software was fairly expensive ($10-15k) and the different companies were quite competitive. But even then, programmers would try to make some function better and sometimes it would end up worse or even unusable. They had a forum and if enough of us bitched about a new change, they would usually fix it. What a software programmer sees is not always the same thing thing that guys like me see, who are actually using the program to make a living with.
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Apr 3, 2023 22:57:54 GMT
Bruzer said “total gain/loss” in the thread title. But now mentions “total return”. I get it now. It’s 2 different things. @bruzer, I agree the research section has declined. It is amazing to me that so many programmers need to be employed making changes just because…I forgot your red part. I've been bitching since the mid-90s about this. Software/web designers have some mental defect where they think people like change, just for the sake of change. Some of it may be a sense job security. In general, humans, along with most animals, are "creatures of habit."
Rarely does any change help the actual end user. Functions that most people like are taken away, moved, or hidden. They think a brand-new interface is always "good." No, it isn't. Do the security changes and other stuff as needed but stop destroying the interface. Ninety percent of programmers should be fired, maybe then the nonsense would stop. There was one exception to this in my life. It was the machining software (CAM) I used when I was working. Changes were usually for the better and they didn't re-do the interface just because they felt like it.
The software was fairly expensive ($10-15k) and the different companies were quite competitive. But even then, programmers would try to make some function better and sometimes it would end up worse or even unusable. They had a forum and if enough of us bitched about a new change, they would usually fix it. What a software programmer sees is not always the same thing thing that guys like me see, who are actually using the program to make a living with.
I'm one of these, but the difference is the old ones who worked first on mainframes used to be called programmer analyst. We did the whole lifecycle. This means start talking to users, specs and all the way to coding, implementing, fixing bugs and talking to users until support takes over. The idea was lots of planning and negotiating. As times passes, instead of one person doing most of the work, you have several people. The ones who talk to the users have no clue how computers, files, databases work. The developers are introverts. The pressure is enormous to finish quick and less worry about perfection. The end result isn't pretty. That creates chaos, inefficiency, and resentment. The new software developers think they are artists instead of using engineer processes. I used to fight top management with the above. I would not release to production anything that is not perfect in my opinion. If they insist, they must sign on it. When the blame comes later I have a cover. There are ways for the IT dept to get more time, but most IT managers don't know this art. On average, I find Schwab much better than Fidelity for navigating and accomplishing my tasks. Last hint: IMO, if 80 old grandma having difficulty using the software, the IT department failed.
|
|
|
Post by Broozer on Apr 4, 2023 2:00:39 GMT
Hey FD, thanks for that insight. First time I've heard it from "the inside."
I've had zero complaints about Schwab or their website until last fall when they changed the total return function so it has less data than it used to, and also completely changed the research pages. If you look hard enough, on the right spot, it offers a link to the "Legacy view" of research.
But you cannot make it default, and I'm sure they will bury it at some point. The new pages still have all the data the old ones did, but you have to re-learn it again to maneuver around. That's the downside. The upside? -- none, except job security for the lunatic developers.
|
|
|
Post by Mustang on Apr 4, 2023 2:04:23 GMT
Last hint: IMO, if 80 old grandma having difficulty using the software, the IT department failed. If that is the standard then there are a lot of failures out there from cell phones to computers to satellite TV.
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Apr 4, 2023 14:09:33 GMT
Last hint: IMO, if 80 old grandma having difficulty using the software, the IT department failed. If that is the standard then there are a lot of failures out there from cell phones to computers to satellite TV. Maybe not failures but lots of aggravation and time consuming to find answers. Apple products have been selling so well because of their simplicity, and it pushed others to make their products better. When we look at financial or Gov sites, all you have to do is bring in several dozen users that never used it and see if they can accomplish most tasks. If they can't, then you make it easier/clearer. Most of my career was developing system for professionals(financial,retail,Gov,warehouse,agriculture) to use internally, not for the public. The main problem is that these clients can't define what they want. My best system I ever developed was working for a huge holding company where the CPO was brilliant and knew exactly what he wanted for their financial system. It's rare when the client is so smart and can make all the decisions, the rest is "easy". So, the "secret" is to spend a lot more time on specs/design and get it right first time, because mistakes in design cost you several times more in implementation.
|
|