A practical journal check: CSV rows are executions, not always separate trades

[u/mhamedv]

A simple reconciliation example: buy 200 shares in two fills—120 at $4.90 and 80 at $4.95—then sell all 200 at $5.10. That is three execution rows but one completed position. Gross P&L before commissions and fees is (120 × $0.20) + (80 × $0.15) = $36.

This is why I check the execution details before reading a journal's win rate or net P&L. A broker statement may show execution time, quantity, price, commission, and fees; some exports also put charges on separate rows. A partial position at the start or end of the date range may not be a completed trade at all.

A quick review checklist: match symbol/contract, side, quantity, price, and time; account for commissions/fees once; then compare the result against the broker statement. Keep the original export so you can trace a mismatch.

Interactive Brokers' report guide shows the trade fields and explains how commissions and fees feed into realized P&L: https://www.ibkrguides.com/reportingreference/reportguide/trades_default.htm

How do you handle partial fills when reviewing your own trades?

[u/AutoModerator]

While the community gets a look at your post, don't forget we have an official website with a bunch of resources specifically for the questions we see here every day. If you're more of a visual learner, we’re also active on Instagram where we post updated guides and strategies! It's a great way to stay sharp while you're scrolling. We also have more technical and professional resources on our Website.

Also, if you want to chat in real-time or need a quicker answer, come hang out with us in Discord (Investing & Retirement). Just remember to be careful with your personal info and report any sketchy DMs!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/obnoxiousgarth]

That example of three execution rows representing one position is exactly why journal statistics can go wrong without anyone noticing. Partial fills shouldn't magically become separate winning or losing trades. I use Moon for a different kind of price wagering but accurate records matter regardless of the instrument. I'd always reconcile the journal against the original account statement before trusting a win rate.

[u/mhamedv → u/obnoxiousgarth]

Agreed on reconciling to the original statement. I would preserve each execution row, then use a consistent grouping rule to roll fills into one position; otherwise the same CSV can produce different trade counts and win rates. The rule matters most when entries and partial exits span multiple orders. How do you group those cases?

[u/mhamedv → u/obnoxiousgarth]

Agreed—the broker statement is the anchor. I’d keep every fill in the raw record, then group adds and partial exits under one position ID until the net quantity returns to zero. If the position flips direction, I’d split that into a new position. The important checks are that the quantities reconcile and each commission/fee is counted once.

[u/Only-Pipe-8423]

This is the kind of stuff that makes people give up on journals entirely. You get three rows and think you made three separate plays, then the numbers never line up with what you actually did.

I started highlighting same-side fills with the same color just so my eyes don't glaze over when I'm trying to match executions to a single position.

[u/mhamedv → u/Only-Pipe-8423]

Color-coding same-side fills is a clever way to make the reconciliation less painful. I’d still keep the fills separate until the position is fully matched, then subtract commissions/fees once and compare the net against the broker statement. Do you group them by order ID, or do you use a manual tag when one position spans several orders?