Further to my earlier discussion: - At times the % change in price of funds can be incorrect - I’ve been investigating how PP handles funds whose NAVs are not published daily, and I wanted to check whether the current behaviour is intentional.
A concrete example of what I’m referring to here is the Credo Growth Fund (ISIN IE00BDFZR430), which publishes NAVs weekly.
Recent NAVs were:
| Date | NAV |
|---|---|
| 22 May 2026 | GBP 2.1112 |
| 29 May 2026 | GBP 2.1854 |
Portfolio Performance reports:
-
1 Week Change in Price: +3.51% (which appears correct)
-
1 Day Change in Price: 0.00%
The weekly figure is based on the movement from 2.1112 to 2.1854 and therefore reflects the most recent NAV update.
However, the daily figure remains 0.00%, presumably because there was no NAV published on the previous calendar day and PP is comparing the same NAV value on both dates.
My question is whether this is the intended behaviour.
For funds that publish NAVs weekly, or daily in arrears, an alternative interpretation of “1 Day Change in Price” might be:
Change since the previous available NAV
rather than:
Change since the previous calendar day
Under that interpretation, the most recent NAV update would show as a 3.51% price change rather than 0.00%.
I’ve reviewed the source code which has highlighted that Security.getSecurityPrice() already performs a backward lookup to the latest available quote, so I suspect the behaviour may be related to how the reporting interval is defined rather than quote retrieval itself.
Is the current behaviour considered correct by design, or would there be merit in supporting a “previous available NAV” approach for mutual funds whose prices are published less frequently?
For context, delayed or infrequent NAV reporting is fairly common among some UK-domiciled funds and certain Asian fund providers, so I suspect this may affect more than just the Credo Growth Fund.
I’d be interested to hear whether others have encountered the same issue and what the preferred behaviour would be.