Filter by investment types in the Risk/Reward Scatter graph

[Djobydjoba]

Hi Mark,

In subportfolios, I've organize my watchlists by geographical areas or by sectors, and not by investment types. So in each subportfolio I have various investment types: indexes, mutual funds, ETF, currencies, relative strengths and yield spreads (both calculated with the "Create Investment from Investments" command), and so one.

This is the best organization for my needs, but it is not suited for the Risk/Reward Scatter graph type, which displays all the investments in the selected sub-portfolio. Yield spreads can have negative values, relative strengths and currencies are not relevant too, and these ruin the scales and readability of the graph.

So, for this graph type, it would be nice to have the option to select which investment types to display (with the ability for multiple selection) and which we don't want.

[Mark]

Hi Djobydjoba,

Are you asking to display this graph type by investment, and filter by type in that same graph? You can make this graph display by investment type already.

[Djobydjoba]

Are you asking to display this graph type by investment, and filter by type in that same graph?

Yes, exactly. Here's what the graph by investment can look like when there are mixed, not related, investment types in the subportfolio:
https://i.ibb.co/c2CW7wn/20200210-lun-18h56-01.png

So the ability to retain only certain investment types (for example: ETF, mutual funds and indexes) and exclude some others (relative strengths, currencies, spreads...) would be nice.

But in fact the main problem comes from the unconventional investments I have (spreads, relative strengths...), and my portfolio structure (but I don't want to change it). These investments are used as indicators for market analysis. For some graphs and some reports these unconventional investments are problematic. They prevent to make some computations at the portfolio level, or lead to miscalculations.

I will probably open a dedicated topic about this.

[Mark]

Hi Djobydjoba,

Okay, thanks for the clarification. We can consider this.