3 ms·

Is it? I've never seen a graph do this. Even e.g. fund performance comparing to index, normalized to starting value, show below-the-line in all graphs I've seen

Is it? I've never seen a graph do this. Even e.g. fund performance comparing to index, normalized to starting value, show below-the-line in all graphs I've seen. E.g. this https://www.blackrock.com/uk/intermediaries/products/230286/blackrock-overseas-government-bond-tracker-fund-class-d-acc-fund https://www.blackrock.com/uk/intermediaries/products/230286/... Doesn't start from zero, but is very clear that it doesn't start from unity either.

stingraycharles 7y ago
It’s pretty easy to understand this chart. In finance absolute numbers make more sense as they are “static”, but in benchmarks it’s typically not very useful to show eg the time spent, as this depends entirely on your hardware and is not very interesting. Rather, you solely want to compare with other numbers, and as such you normalize everything to 1.00 as the starting point. This type of chart is extremely common in benchmarks.
- knorker 7y ago
  I'm not saying it's hard to understand. And how are finance numbers, in what I linked to, static? I have no problem with normalizing the number. That seems like the obvious best way. That's why they also do it in the finance graph I linked to.
  - stingraycharles 7y ago
    Sorry, I think static was not the correct word; I think I meant absolute, ie Tesla stock being worth $1k is the same for everyone. This is not the case with benchmarks, where the numbers are fairly meaningless and different for everybody, depending on their hardware.
    - knorker 7y ago
      How is it not the same with stock and funds, e.g. what I linked to? What I linked to doesn't show the fund price, it shows the value normalized. Just like benchmark values usually are. It's not the normalization I (and others) am saying is bad, it's the graph. But yes, stocks are usually shown graphed with their ticker value. Funds are usually not.

stingraycharles 7y ago

It’s pretty easy to understand this chart. In finance absolute numbers make more sense as they are “static”, but in benchmarks it’s typically not very useful to show eg the time spent, as this depends entirely on your hardware and is not very interesting. Rather, you solely want to compare with other numbers, and as such you normalize everything to 1.00 as the starting point. This type of chart is extremely common in benchmarks.

knorker 7y ago
I'm not saying it's hard to understand. And how are finance numbers, in what I linked to, static? I have no problem with normalizing the number. That seems like the obvious best way. That's why they also do it in the finance graph I linked to.
- stingraycharles 7y ago
  Sorry, I think static was not the correct word; I think I meant absolute, ie Tesla stock being worth $1k is the same for everyone. This is not the case with benchmarks, where the numbers are fairly meaningless and different for everybody, depending on their hardware.
  - knorker 7y ago
    How is it not the same with stock and funds, e.g. what I linked to? What I linked to doesn't show the fund price, it shows the value normalized. Just like benchmark values usually are. It's not the normalization I (and others) am saying is bad, it's the graph. But yes, stocks are usually shown graphed with their ticker value. Funds are usually not.