Why are returns different / same allocation

[tsptalk]

I know I will be asked about this so I better put it out there...

Some AutoTracker member's returns are 0.01% different than others with the same allocation.... Why is that?

In regards to the an allocation of 50% C, 50% S for example, some got a daily return of 0.79% and a few got 0.78%. The actual return was +0.785046%.

So, I know it looks off, but it is actually correct on the accounts - It's just a rounding issue and caused by rolling over return from the prior year, and the way the daily figure is derived for each account in the AutoTracker.

The way we figure your daily return is to take your new annual return and subtract the prior day's annual return.

Here is a rough example: If your return was 8.9800% on day 1, and the G-fund was up 0.0043% on the day, your new return is 8.9843%. Rounded that is still 8.9800% which rounds to a gain of 0.00%.

If your return was 8.9842% on day 1, and the G-fund was up 0.0043% on the day, your new return is 8.9858%. Rounded that is still 8.9900%. So you'd see the +0.01%.

So it's correct in the database and calculated to 2 more decimal places, but because of rounding it doesn't look like it rounded and displayed on the standing page.

I hope that makes sense.

Tom
TSP Talk

 

[tsptalk]

Here's another FAQ for the January AutoTracker...

Some AutoTracker members may have noticed that their account is showing one IFT for the year when they actually have not made any interfund transfers, or one additional IFT to the number they have made. Not to worry. They won't count against you.

If you were added to the AutoTracker after Dec 30, or made an IFT after Dec 30 that you wanted to take effect on the 1st trading day in January, the AutoTracker will interpret that starting allocation as an IFT because of the January date. That IFT won't count toward your 2 even though the AutoTracker shows it. The program is counting that physically, but it won't be a problem for you. We know it was just a way to get around a late IFT to start the year.

 

[burrocrat]

hmmmm. so if there was a member at 5.51" and a member at 6.49", then both would round to 6" and be the same? i'm pretty sure there is about half the population who would beg to differ, but that probably depend on who doing the driving.

 

[nasa1974]

hmmmm. so if there was a member at 5.51" and a member at 6.49", then both would round to 6" and be the same? i'm pretty sure there is about half the population who would beg to differ, but that probably depend on who doing the driving.

That is a true statement if you round up to the whole number. If you round up by tenths then you would have 5.5 and 6.5. Typically the number would be rounded up to the hundredth digit .01.

 

[tsptalk]

hmmmm. so if there was a member at 5.51" and a member at 6.49", then both would round to 6" and be the same? i'm pretty sure there is about half the population who would beg to differ, but that probably depend on who doing the driving.

What you see displayed is rounded. Not what is in the database. It's actual and adjusts.

One person did not make 0.78% and another 0.79% as my example yesterday shows. Both had 0.785046% added to their account.