I’m a bit lost as to why there are two (vastly) different numbers in the TWR YTD column.
The ‘sum’ is also much worse than the worst-performing asset over the selected time period.
There should be a small difference because 0.75% is in a cash account.
Can someone point out the obvious thing I am missing here? What could cause this difference?
Could some assets have been sold during this YTD period ?
Was there another asset category (other than Aandelen /eigen vermongen) which was existing but does not appear anymore as all of its assets were sold ?
If you plot on the Performance / Chart the whole portfolio on a YTD reporting period, do you have the -44% ?
Hi Veterini,
In this portfolio, nothing was sold during the reporting/YTD period. The majority (99%) of the portfolio was acquired in May/25.
When I plot the whole portfolio, I also see the -44% on the chart.
What puzzles me is that the sum is nearly the same as the 14 assets (they make up 99.25%) of the portfolio.
Because the majority of the portfolio was acquired in May, you expect a significant difference between the IRR and TWR, which is the case.
You do expect the TWR to be closely aligned or at least not worse than the individual TWR per asset (how can the sum be worse than any of its parts), after all it is the same metric?
On the chart, how is behaving the TWR leading to the -44% ? Is it already moving/negative before May ?
The 14 assets makes up 99% of the whole portfolio today, but was it always the case ?
TWR does not care if the performance is on a small euros value or large value, so it can be sensitive to initial performence on small value. Example in extreme case, a 5€ loss on 10€ is already a -50% from the start for the TWR. Maybe a small asset position started before May and was not successful ? Or some fees on cash account before May ?
What happens if you select another reporting period, from some dates in May where most of the portfolio was acquired to now ? Is the difference still there ?
The portfolio TWR is a weighted geometric average of the sub-period returns, not a simple average of individual investment TWRs. Differences in investment weights, return timing, currencies returns, and compounding effects all contribute to the discrepancy.
In my portfolios, the sum is allways less than the individual parts.
Yes, on the chart, it is behaving positively before March 2nd, afterwards it plunges down and ends at -44%.
The portfolio consisted of 1 asset initially (the one which now weighs 46%). This asset was expanded significantly in May, and the 13 others were added at the same time.
It makes sense that the TWR is quite negative, given the performance of the 1 asset around March.
However, the composition of ‘sum’ is exactly the same as the ‘sum of assets’ (bar a small cash position, but this should not give very large differences, as there is no gain/loss).
Both for the ‘sum’ and ‘sum of assets’ line, the year started with X amount and was expanded with Y amount in May.
I understand why the TWR is negative, but I have trouble understanding why the two top lines are so vastly different when they are the same collection of assets.
When selecting another reporting period, this does not alter the ‘statement of assets’ view, numbers remain the same (as it is not tied to a reporting period).
Another explanation could Taxes. Whole portfolio TWR is “after taxes”, while Taxonomy and security are “before taxes”.
I am attaching a simple sample portfolio file with 1 stock, 1 buy to show it.
twrtaxe.xml (215,2 Ko)
Unfortunately, those can also be ruled out, there were no taxes or currency adjustments over the period. There are a few minimal broker costs (0.0009% of the portfolio value), but I doubt they carry enough weight to cause the difference.
