We think the issue Trader_Ray describes is a spreadsheet logic problem, not a data error. When your template pulls a 375-day date range and a fund like $DRNZ has only traded for 93 days, the software fills every cell in the range, including the empty days before the fund existed. It treats the first available date as the starting point for the lookback, so October 29, 2025, becomes the "first day" even though your column header says March 3, 2025. The result is 93 rows of real data followed by blanks or placeholders, which feels broken because the date alignment is off.
The fix is straightforward: build a dynamic lookback that checks the fund's actual first trading day and adjusts the start of your date range accordingly. Most spreadsheet tools offer a `MAX()` or an `IF()` function to compare the fund's inception date against your desired lookback length. For example, if you want 375 days of data, the formula should say "start at the later of March 3, 2025, or the fund's first trading day." That way $DRNZ would begin its 375-day window on October 29, 2025, and your columns would align cleanly from that point forward. It's a common edge case when mixing older ETFs with newer ones, and the fix takes about two minutes once you know where to look.
What this means in practice is that your template works perfectly for established funds but needs a conditional start date to handle young ETFs. You're not doing anything wrong, the logic is sound for a uniform set of tickers. The missing piece is a single line that says "if the fund doesn't have 375 days of history, use whatever it does have and start there." That keeps your daily history accurate without forcing empty cells into the early dates.
The practical takeaway: never assume a fixed date range works for every ETF in your watchlist. Build your template to reference each fund's inception date, and you'll eliminate the mismatch entirely. It's a small adjustment that turns a frustrating quirk into a reliable, repeatable process.