Top Performers / Worst Performers

[CurtB]

Maybe I'm missing something very basic, but I don't see a way to report my Top performing investments and my worst performing investments. The investment performance report might offer a solution, but I can't see any way to sort by gain or %gain--the report is always sorted alphabetically by the Investment Name or symbol. Is there a way to change the sort in a report?

It would be nice if there was a report that would show the top 5 investments and the bottom 5 investments in a portfolio for a specified period. Perhaps a future enhancement?

-Curt

[Mark]

Hi Curt,

You can sort any report by any displayed column. While viewing the report, see the top level "Sort" menu. Select whatever column you want from that menu, and your report will be sorted by that column. You can sort ascending or descending.

[tommcg]

Mark, regarding sort order on reports and editor, it would be nice if a secondary sort order were possible when the primary has duplicate values. Perhaps if bubblesort were used (to preserve previous sort order for duplicates), you could click on column B first, then column A, then it would be sorted primary A with secondary B. Just a suggestion.

Thx.

[Mark]

Hi tommcg,

This is indeed how this works now. You can do exactly as you've described. We do use a bubble sort. You could even extend this concept to a third or more columns.

[tommcg]

Hi, Mark. I have a theory why the secondary sort isn't working for me. On the portfolio editor view I have a mix of open investments with nonzero values and closed investments with zero values. I like to sort this descending by value and then within the group of closed investments (all have zero value), by Last Trans Date. The problem is that when I click on Last Trans Date and then click on Value, the closed positions all change relative order. Perhaps the "zero" values displayed aren't really "zero" from a sort perspective -- they are some really small non-zero number that displays as zero? Then it would make sense they do not maintain their previous relative order when sort on that column.

Does that sound plausible?

Thx.

[Mark]

Hi tommcg,

Yes, this makes perfect sense. The Value sorting is done on a double floating point number, which is not rounded to the nearest penny before comparing. It would be better if we rounded the number to the same number of significant digits that we're displaying, before doing the comparison...