@EB I was saying the start date field changed to 2009 automatically. Clicking on that calendar after the test, there was a message to the effect of first available date for securities being traded, surely you've seen that a few times eh. If there's a log message about it as well, I missed it.
Switching to the second-most recent backtest above with apparent returns of 197, its profit per dollar was just 60 due to margin. A common problem. This version has apparent returns of 233 and profit per dollar is 232, so almost no margin. So not only is 233 higher than 197 but also 232 is higher than 60. Using profit per dollar activated|invested is the only way I know for comparing two algorithms apples-to-apples and seeing more clearly what they are really doing by neutralizing, or adjusting for, their use of capital, i.e. amount of risk. Maybe people don't go that route because of the reduced speed.
There were evidently so many partial fills (the cause of all that margin along with the inherent unpredictability that goes with it hand-in-hand, unintended margin with order_target_percent when there are partial fills) that I took an unusually extreme approach in reactivating close() by running an entire day before balance and again the morning of that monthly balance, as this, the first try. @Ro FG, you might want to use similar and see what happens in your version.