Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
@msf Just tried typing-in a different ticker in the "quote" box from that old link. A drop-down thing appeared. It recognized the ticker. But then CLICK on it, and you are taken to a "nothing found by that ticker" page. When I type the same ticker into the "search" box, I'm taken to a "this page does not exist" page, with the "new look" to it. Shit.... Feces all around. The new Morningstar sucks it hard and deep.
Alpha testing was what M* did for months - providing links to "preview" the new M* pages. Anyone following these links (I did not) could be thought of as a requisite "friendly" user, one not expecting to see a fully functional system, albeit with glitches.
The pages presented have been defended by M* as feature complete - that the removal of data was deliberate - that M* was essentially streamlining to provide those data that users generally found most useful.
This is part of why I've described M*'s changes as ones designed to drive away premium subscribers. This is the class of users who would most miss the intentionally deleted information and capabilities.
... Just tried typing-in a different ticker in the "quote" box from that old link. A drop-down thing appeared. It recognized the ticker. But then CLICK on it, and you are taken to a "nothing found by that ticker" page. When I type the same ticker into the "search" box, I'm taken to a "this page does not exist" page, with the "new look" to it. ,,,
Unfortunately I don't expect much even of the old links. Still, out of curiosity and if you don't mind sharing, could you say what ticker you were looking for? It would help to see how these old links fail, and to poke around looking for other workarounds.
M* has been alpha testing the new site, and site improvements, for a few YEARS now. Premium members were paying for the privilege of disruptive or incorrect data, broken pages, features working or not working, etc. Overall, a horrible QA and development process.
... Just tried typing-in a different ticker in the "quote" box from that old link. A drop-down thing appeared. It recognized the ticker. But then CLICK on it, and you are taken to a "nothing found by that ticker" page. When I type the same ticker into the "search" box, I'm taken to a "this page does not exist" page, with the "new look" to it. ,,,
Unfortunately I don't expect much even of the old links. Still, out of curiosity and if you don't mind sharing, could you say what ticker you were looking for? It would help to see how these old links fail, and to poke around looking for other workarounds.
PTIAX recognized (showing a drop-down to click-on), but then after clicking, I'm brought to a "nothing" page. But TGUNX DOES work. Also, PRWCX works. I'm referring to the old "legacy" page which includes the "purchase" tab.
I can’t imagine why anyone would pay for M* premium service. The site to me is worth what I pay for it, which is nothing. It also has been apparent for a long time that M* considered its forums an inconvenience and didn’t care if people quit using them. I took the hint and largely quit participating in the forums a long time ago.
I can’t imagine why anyone would pay for M* premium service. The site to me is worth what I pay for it, which is nothing. It also has been apparent for a long time that M* considered its forums an inconvenience and didn’t care if people quit using them. I took the hint and largely quit participating in the forums a long time ago.
Quite right. Me, too. And my premium service at Morningstar is free for me, provided as a perk by TRP. Obviously, the value of that perk is virtually nothing, anymore.
PTIAX recognized (showing a drop-down to click-on), but then after clicking, I'm brought to a "nothing" page. But TGUNX DOES work. Also, PRWCX works. I'm referring to the old "legacy" page which includes the "purchase" tab.
If more evidence is needed that M* is trying to drive away anyone but high revenue customers (read: professionals), these are excerpts is from their transition FAQ:
Where's the one-page fund PDF report?We've removed the one-page fund PDF report from Morningstar.com and are working on adding a print feature. If you're a financial professional, you can find a FINRA-approved version of the one-page fund PDF in our professional products. ... contact our sales team.
How do I export holding data from the quote page?This feature is no longer available on our quote pages. If you're a financial professional, we have other products .... contact our sales team.
How do I compare investments across vehicle type? .... You cannot compare across investment vehicles at this time. If you're a financial professional, we have other products .... contact our sales team.
Frankly I'm finding better site functionality and more useful data, food-for-thought analysis, and interesting commentary at SeekingAlpha these days. May be worth more than M*Premium the way things are going over there these days. Sheesh.
And of course MFO Premium is very useful/helpful as well! (BTW what would be even handier would be if MFO fund research could also display things like top 10 holdings in a fund and their prices, like what M* did.)
...Yet, I worry that since online information is so total and ubiquitous, many libraries have canceled the paper subscriptions to a thing like Morningstar?
and everything is working, at least at the moment, in the new modern interface and style. Click Show Interactive Chart to do comparisons as before (in a subwindow).
@Crash: ".Yet, I worry that since online information is so total and ubiquitous, many libraries have canceled the paper subscriptions to a thing like Morningstar?" Crash this took place about 5 or 6 years ago at my local library.
Now that M* mfund graphing is back partly working, does anyone have any thoughts about ETFs? When you graph a given mfund's $10k growth, then add an ETF symbol to compare, now M* appears to have restored their ETF database only partly, and moreover the ETF comes up listed w wack suffixes: EU, IV, NV, SO, TC ....
SPY TC, for example.
Some entries do seem to show the same performance of the simple ETF requested, while other suffixes produce graphs all over the place, like a data error. Thoughts?
It looks like they've eliminated the ability to compare multiple funds against each other which used to be under "performance"... Please tell me if I'm wrong. I have to say that its a pretty worthless product from what I'm seeing now. And I've been a customer for 10 years.
Yes eliminating the ability to compare funds as well as the purchase tab made it pretty worthless. So now I have to go to the fund website to see where I can purchase.. that's nuts.
- legacy chart works fine so far, just sub in your fund for PRWCX (@Ted)
- when it goes away, as it probably will, you can compare funds in the new site quite as before, easily, just click Show Interactive Chart and the popup has an Add Comparison field (@MikeW)
- it is here where you have to scroll in the comparison list to find the ETF you want, and they now have these weird suffixes and sometimes wacky data
- purchase info does seem to be gone, but I bet it is somewhere and is findable
To stay on the legacy pages when you change funds from a legacy link, just replace the ticker in the url with the one you want. (I think that's what David was saying.) Don't use the quote box like we used to do; that route takes you to a new-version quote page. If you end up on a new-version page, you may need a cross and some garlic to get away.
Now that M* mfund graphing is back partly working, does anyone have any thoughts about ETFs? When you graph a given mfund's $10k growth, then add an ETF symbol to compare, now M* appears to have restored their ETF database only partly, and moreover the ETF comes up listed w wack suffixes: EU, IV, NV, SO, TC ....
SPY TC, for example.
Some entries do seem to show the same performance of the simple ETF requested, while other suffixes produce graphs all over the place, like a data error. Thoughts?
This is one of the few places where M* has arguably improved data availability,
The structure of the ETF is based on holdings transparency. One of the keys to being transparent is publishing all of the numbers required to calculate the fair value of an ETF. ... [These are identified with the monikers] ... NV ... IV ... TC ... EU ... SO ... DV
Personally, I just stick with net asset value (NV), which is similar to the chart data that it used to give. Even in the old version, the chart comparison was somewhat limited (couldn't compare both NAV and price performance, though I'm not sure which was presented).
But it had provided a separate performance tab, where you could compare both NAV performance and price performance. That seems to be missing now.
A good line, except the new page does work just fine for graphing, but for these ETF-suffix oddball choices.
I fogot the stake, though.
I prefer the old fund ratings & risk pages for the one shorter term data point - 1y up/down capture - missing from the new page, and the old performance pages, which showed 5y worth of monthly and quarterly returns, gone from the new pages. The new perf pages, tho, show a longer history of distributions than the old one did.
The old pages did update at the turn of the month, so maybe they'll be viable for a while for those of us who prefer some of the older reporting.
Comments
no question they know all this, wild that it is exposed
The pages presented have been defended by M* as feature complete - that the removal of data was deliberate - that M* was essentially streamlining to provide those data that users generally found most useful.
This is part of why I've described M*'s changes as ones designed to drive away premium subscribers. This is the class of users who would most miss the intentionally deleted information and capabilities.
M* has been alpha testing the new site, and site improvements, for a few YEARS now. Premium members were paying for the privilege of disruptive or incorrect data, broken pages, features working or not working, etc. Overall, a horrible QA and development process.
http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/purchase-info.html?t=PTIAX®ion=usa&culture=en-US
Where's the one-page fund PDF report?We've removed the one-page fund PDF report from Morningstar.com and are working on adding a print feature. If you're a financial professional, you can find a FINRA-approved version of the one-page fund PDF in our professional products. ... contact our sales team.
How do I export holding data from the quote page?This feature is no longer available on our quote pages. If you're a financial professional, we have other products .... contact our sales team.
How do I compare investments across vehicle type? .... You cannot compare across investment vehicles at this time. If you're a financial professional, we have other products .... contact our sales team.
Thank you for your time and effort.
Catch
And of course MFO Premium is very useful/helpful as well! (BTW what would be even handier would be if MFO fund research could also display things like top 10 holdings in a fund and their prices, like what M* did.)
A: At your local Public library.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/dseex/performance
and everything is working, at least at the moment, in the new modern interface and style. Click Show Interactive Chart to do comparisons as before (in a subwindow).
This is still wack nonfunctional:
https://www.morningstar.com/search?query=dseex
Crash this took place about 5 or 6 years ago at my local library.
Have a good weekend, Derf
SPY TC, for example.
Some entries do seem to show the same performance of the simple ETF requested, while other suffixes produce graphs all over the place, like a data error. Thoughts?
Regards,
Ted
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=PRWCX
Regards,
Ted
- legacy chart works fine so far, just sub in your fund for PRWCX (@Ted)
- when it goes away, as it probably will, you can compare funds in the new site quite as before, easily, just click Show Interactive Chart and the popup has an Add Comparison field (@MikeW)
- it is here where you have to scroll in the comparison list to find the ETF you want, and they now have these weird suffixes and sometimes wacky data
- purchase info does seem to be gone, but I bet it is somewhere and is findable
Fidelity: A primer on ETF valuation Personally, I just stick with net asset value (NV), which is similar to the chart data that it used to give. Even in the old version, the chart comparison was somewhat limited (couldn't compare both NAV and price performance, though I'm not sure which was presented).
But it had provided a separate performance tab, where you could compare both NAV performance and price performance. That seems to be missing now.
See, e.g. this (old) performance tab for SPY, where you can compare its performance (price and NAV) with that of, e.g. VOO.
http://performance.morningstar.com/funds/etf/total-returns.action?t=SPY®ion=usa&culture=en-US
But on the (old) chart page for SPY, the comparison is more limited. Here's that comparison for SPY and VOO: comparison chart.
I prefer the old fund ratings & risk pages for the one shorter term data point - 1y up/down capture - missing from the new page, and the old performance pages, which showed 5y worth of monthly and quarterly returns, gone from the new pages. The new perf pages, tho, show a longer history of distributions than the old one did.
The old pages did update at the turn of the month, so maybe they'll be viable for a while for those of us who prefer some of the older reporting.