They got back to me, so we are talking. I find it a little unsettling that they still have the elementary things wrong. For example, here is the cumulative returns chart for my account: Clearly, this chart wants you to believe that I made 254 million percent gain in 3 days! Yeah, if I am so good, how come they don't give me OPM? Now, let's look at the "account size history" chart. My account does not have enough history, so let's use your account (hope you don't mind). Here is the chart (the black circles are mine for emphasis): So, is your current account worth $2,126,450 or is it about $600K as the chart shows? Not clear at all, is it?
Hi NL The discrepancy between NAS and assets over time in my account is not an error. If you read the FS information you can choose to eithier have a fixed NAS (essentially the asset base value used to calculate % returns from the actual $ returns you make) or use the actual account value. The actual amount in my account (the lower chart) is (a) varying and (b) always much more than I actually have at risk (between 300K and 400K depending on the period involved). So for example the withdrawal of capital I made in November 2014 would have resulted in my % returns going up and my risk profile changing. But in reality the amount of money I'm deploying would have stayed the same. So the fixed NAS method made more sense. A fixed NAS has to be higher than the account value, hence my choice of a relatively large value. So the answer to your question is I currently have about £600K in the account, but the NAS is over £2 million (the reason for the odd number is to do with a currency translation as you can only specify a NAS in $). For your returns it's most likely your NAS is too small. So even a very low $ return is an amazing %. I had a similar problem in that my NAS went in initially with the wrong scale (other direction - my % returns were very tiny), and yes I had to complain to get it fixed, and yes it was a pain in the ass. I agree it's frustrating, and these kind of issues could be picked up with better quality control and basic communication ("Hey you put in your NAS as $2 billion / $2. Did you mean to do that?"). This takes time but is quicker in the long run than having to repeatedly fix problems because they weren't right first time. For everyone's information I had a long chat with the CEO of fundseeder today. Of course I can't guarantee they'll get this working overnight (like most startups they're probably trying to do too much, and they're probably under resourced), but I can tell you that they're definitely aware of what they need to fix, and the fact they were so keen to talk to me indicates they trying to do this. I'm even more convinced that these guys have exactly the right approach to this problem and I'd really like them to succeed. GAT PS Just in case anyone is suspicous I'd like to put on the record that I have no financial arrangement with these guys; this is my honest opinion. I'm not a shill for FS*, just a customer who likes the idea but is fully aware that the implementation is far from being spot on. * OK this is exactly what a shill would say. But shills, in my experience, tend not to write long reviews including a certain amount of criticism; short effusive posts are more their style.
I've opted to use "Net Liquidating Value" instead of "Constant NAS", so my 254M% return still does not make any sense. Your account size of $2,126,450 does not make sense, either. As you've identified, it's £600K. Even when adjusted for currency, it's still wrong. I understand from your explanation that NAS is set arbitrarily by you, and is not reflective of the actual account size. Perhaps FS should come up with a better name for it, i.e. call it "Scaled account base", or something like that. That should be next to the figure that they should call "Actual account size".
Yes maybe the name is confusing. But the account size isn't wrong; it's exactly where I set it. This facility to set a different account value is actually very important and useful. Again an example of a good product, but not very well communicated. GAT
Yes, I understand the concept of setting the "constant net asset value", but it's still not clear to me whether the calculated returns are adjusted for it, or not. Let's take your case. Suppose that as of Dec 31, 2015, your actual account balance was £600K. FS says that your monthly return for January 2016 was 5.11%. If your calculation method was "NLV", it would mean that you made £30,660 in January of 2016. Now, let's say that you chose to use "constant NAS" instead, and set it to £1.2M, i.e. twice your actual balance. The question is, would FundSeeder report your January gain as 5.11%, or perhaps as 5.11/2 = 2.555%?
I just joined fundseeder. Great potential, but I'm not seeing much in terms of analytics besides measuring the total value of your account over time. I would have expected some trade-level analytics, or at least info. like "average number of positions held overnight," "largest exposure (as pct. of account value) to a single underlying", "average number of securities traded per day," "commissions paid," "total monthly turnover," etc. Do they really not have any portfolio info. (trades, sizes and allocations) tracked, or have I just been unable to find it thus far?
No it's not there. This is something that keeps popping in and out of Beta testing. When I first registered they had trade level data then it vanished; then I recently logged on via my smartphone and there was trade level data there (which was incorrect incidentally!) and then it vanished again. This is a free platform, and they do seem to be focusing more on selling funds to outside investors at the moment; to be fair that's the only way they're going to monetise the free analytics. GAT
Yeah, although it seems that if you were a prospective invetsor, you'd want to be able to see trade-level stats and portfolio characteristics before even deciding if it was worth your time to investigate further. So I am kind of surprised they are not prioritizing it.