Sir, your comment below is not entirely true. Take the first one on the list, for example, ICIBX. This one shows a deviance of 1655% from one day to another...which occurs on 12/13/06. I checked the QP data and yes there was a distribuition on 12/14/06...SO WHY IS IT NOT ADJUSTED FOR IN THE DATA GRAPH? I can understand the error if QP had not received the dividend/capital payment figures as is/was the case with Fidelity..but the data is clearly there. There data shows two payments made on 12/14/06..one for 2.50 and one for 2.37. This was 2 weeks ago. It is not reflected. If I, or someone else, does not bring this up, how will it get fixed if they don't know about it?
Also, many of the point on the list are over a month old!! And this is because so far, I have only gone back that far to check. For example, have you looked at: max Date ticker 100.19% 11/13/06 MPHYX 100.19% 11/13/06 MAHYX 100.15% 11/13/06 UHYPX 14.74% 11/21/06 LADPX 13.66% 11/15/06 VVFCX 12.87% 11/14/06 SHGDX 12.85% 11/14/06 SHGBX 12.80% 11/14/06 SHGCX 12.46% 11/28/06 COCAX 11.68% 11/28/06 CWRSX 11.65% 11/14/06 SLFCX 11.58% 11/14/06 SLFBX 11.58% 11/14/06 SLFDX 11.33% 11/14/06 SGSRX 11.25% 11/14/06 SHGAX 10.86% 11/14/06 SGSIX 10.74% 11/14/06 SHEBX MPHYX has a 100% differential on 11/13/06. Sir, this is OVER 1 MONTH AGO... on 11/13/06...and QP data shows NO payment on that date. Sir, is 11/13/06, year end? Where are the flaws in my logic as I just divide one day's price by another to get a % change? And note, that for the mutual funds, for the sample I used, a difference of 10% of more is past the 3 standard deviation level. 5 or 6% is about the 2 standard deviation level. That is, for a 1 day % change. I am sorry if this makes the data 'look' bad. If I had an email address to send this to that worked, I'd use that. But in the past, I only saw results after posting it here. Has that changed? AND CHECK PWECX!!! The prices are NEGATIVE!! Looking at the distribution data in QP... a distribution of 593 is shown on 12/22/06. IS THAT AN END OF YEAR DISTRIBUTION ERROR!..how can you have a distribution of 593???? Check it...and see for yourself. I will continue to check even earlier than 11/13/16 and see what comes up. It seems to be the only way to get this cleared up. It is not my intent to keep Gary over occupied on this, but in my opinion, data ACCURACY..is more important than program improvement. Program improvement is great and wanted..but accuracy comes first. I don't know about you, but i create programs and algorithms to select issues to 'invest' my hard saved money on. Errors like this for any particular issue, from the computer standpoint, makes all the data for that issue worthless...and also messes things up when examining population data for all issues...making that analysis of little use as well. So yes, I can understand delays in corrections due to end of month payments during the 'season'..but lots of these are over 1 month old and probably older (I have not checked yet)..so your case is mute. I am just a messenger..so don't shoot the messenger...or however the saying goes. These problems exist and I just bring them to light for correction. If that bothers you, I'm sorry. Have a great new year. --- In [email protected], "optiontrader3290" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > investor0329; > > I believe that there are flaws in the logic of your spreadsheet and > that it is not quite ready for prime time. > > I suspect that what you are seeing here is simply the year-end > distribution of capital gains. I have checked several of the items on > your list and indeed this appears to me the case. > > It would appear that a lot of the lists time is being wasted here on > items that have not been researched before we state them as facts. > More time needs to spent on reading a good book on the fundamentals > of investing in mutual funds rather then the fundamentals of building > spreadsheets. > > The result of this merely creates the impression that the database is > in really bad shape. I know that errors exist, but the level is not > anywhere near what you are reporting. > > Let's give Gary and the rest of us a break. >
