Yahoo Finance shows incorrect data
Yes, I see the same problem.  Google's version seems to be correct, however.
I agree that a random page on the internet is not always a good source, but at the same time I will use Google or Yahoo Finance to look up US/EU equities, even though those sites are not authoritative and offer zero guarantees as to the accuracy of their data. In the same vein you could try a website devoted to warrants in your market.  For example, I Googled toronto stock exchange warrants and the very first link took me to a site with all the information you mentioned.  The authoritative source for the information would be the listing exchange, but I've spent five minutes on the TSX website and couldn't find even a fraction of the information about that warrant that I found on the non-authoritative site. It's got to be a bad chunk of data on Google.  Yahoo finance does not show that anomaly for 1988, nor does the chart from Home Depot's investor relations site: Yahoo's primary business isn't providing mutual fund performance data.  They aim to be convenient, but often leave something to be desired in terms of completeness. Try Morningstar instead.  Their mission is investment research. Here's a link to Morningstar's data for the fund you specified.  If you scroll down, you'll see: "Yahoo's ""Adj Close"" data is adjusted for splits, but not for dividends. Despite Yahoo's webpage's footnote saying  *Close price adjusted for dividends and splits. we can see empirically that the ""Adj Close"" is only adjusted for splits. For example, consider Siemens from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 15, 2017: The Adj Close adjusts for splits: On any particular day, the ""Adj Close"" is equal to the ""Close"" price divided by the cumulative product of all splits that occurred after that day. If there have been no splits after that day, then the ""Adj Close"" equals the ""Close"" price. Since there is a 2-for-1 split on Mar 14, 2017, the Adj Close is half the Close price for all dates from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 13, 2017. Note that if Siemens were to split again at some time in the future, the Adj Close prices will be readjusted for this future split. For example, if Siemens were to split 3-for-1 tomorrow, then all the Adj Close prices seen above will be divided by 3. The Adj Close is thus showing the price that a share would have traded on that day if the shares had already been split in accordance with all splits up to today. The Adj Close does not adjust for dividends: Notice that Siemens distributed a $1.87 dividend on Feb 02, 2017 and ~$3.74 dividend on Jan 30, 2017. If the Adj Close value were adjusted for these dividends then we should expect the Adj Close should no longer be exactly half of the Close amount. But we can see that there is no such adjustment -- the Adj Close remains (up to rounding) exactly half the Close amount: Note that in theory, the market reacts to the distribution of dividends by reducing the trading price of shares post-dividend. This in turn is reflected in the raw closing price. So in that sense the Adj Close is also automatically adjusted for dividends. But there is no formula for this. The effect is already baked in through the market's closing prices." "The sentence is mathematically wrong and verbally unclear. Mathematically, you calculate the downwards percentage by So, it should be Verbally, the reporter should have written ""The stock is down by 25%"", not ""down by -25%""." I had a question about this but it apparently wasn’t formed in the right way as I got no explanations and only downvotes, so let me try again.  Given the massive amount of info you gave, I tried to go through and find the data I was asking for- data behind the projections of such a loss.  Perhaps since I’m not a professional economist, It was not immediately apparent to me how to find the data behind the projections.   Would you mind demonstrating how any of these sources provide the data behind how such projections are made?  Or do you have any other advice as to how I could find an answer? To quote their disclaimer: Data is provided by financial exchanges and may be delayed as specified by financial exchanges or our data providers. Google does not verify any data and disclaims any obligation to do so. That means that they buy it from a reseller such as IDC. It probably differs in source between the different exchanges depending on price and availability factors. They do specify in some cases which reseller they use and one of those happens to be Interactive Data (IDC) who are also the data provider used in my day job! &gt;I don't understand the logic of converting a cost of funds of 4% to a monthly % and then subtracting that number from an annual one (the 1.5%).  I know it was wrong, so how would you approach it?  &gt;Unfortunately without seeing the case I really can't help you...there was likely much you have left out from above.    All the relevant details I received for the case are here. What other info are you looking for?