Gold-Currency Strategy II

TotalReturn:

'Total return, when measuring performance, is the actual rate of return of an investment or a pool of investments over a given evaluation period. Total return includes interest, capital gains, dividends and distributions realized over a given period of time. Total return accounts for two categories of return: income including interest paid by fixed-income investments, distributions or dividends and capital appreciation, representing the change in the market price of an asset.'

• The total return over 5 years of Gold-Currency Strategy II is 111.8%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark GLD (151.3%) in the same period.
• Compared with GLD (137.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or performance of 121.1% is smaller, thus worse.

CAGR:

'The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is a useful measure of growth over multiple time periods. It can be thought of as the growth rate that gets you from the initial investment value to the ending investment value if you assume that the investment has been compounding over the time period.'

• The annual return (CAGR) over 5 years of Gold-Currency Strategy II is 16.3%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark GLD (20.3%) in the same period.
• Looking at annual performance (CAGR) in of 30.5% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to GLD (33.6%).

Volatility:

'In finance, volatility (symbol σ) is the degree of variation of a trading price series over time as measured by the standard deviation of logarithmic returns. Historic volatility measures a time series of past market prices. Implied volatility looks forward in time, being derived from the market price of a market-traded derivative (in particular, an option). Commonly, the higher the volatility, the riskier the security.'

• Compared with the benchmark GLD (18.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the volatility of 15.2% of Gold-Currency Strategy II is lower, thus better.
• Compared with GLD (21.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 18.6% is lower, thus better.

DownVol:

'The downside volatility is similar to the volatility, or standard deviation, but only takes losing/negative periods into account.'

• The downside risk over 5 years of Gold-Currency Strategy II is 10.8%, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (13.1%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 13.2%, which is smaller, thus better than the value of 14.9% from the benchmark.

Sharpe:

'The Sharpe ratio was developed by Nobel laureate William F. Sharpe, and is used to help investors understand the return of an investment compared to its risk. The ratio is the average return earned in excess of the risk-free rate per unit of volatility or total risk. Subtracting the risk-free rate from the mean return allows an investor to better isolate the profits associated with risk-taking activities. One intuition of this calculation is that a portfolio engaging in 'zero risk' investments, such as the purchase of U.S. Treasury bills (for which the expected return is the risk-free rate), has a Sharpe ratio of exactly zero. Generally, the greater the value of the Sharpe ratio, the more attractive the risk-adjusted return.'

• Compared with the benchmark GLD (0.96) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.91 of Gold-Currency Strategy II is smaller, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) is 1.5, which is greater, thus better than the value of 1.47 from the benchmark.

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio, a variation of the Sharpe ratio only factors in the downside, or negative volatility, rather than the total volatility used in calculating the Sharpe ratio. The theory behind the Sortino variation is that upside volatility is a plus for the investment, and it, therefore, should not be included in the risk calculation. Therefore, the Sortino ratio takes upside volatility out of the equation and uses only the downside standard deviation in its calculation instead of the total standard deviation that is used in calculating the Sharpe ratio.'

• Looking at the downside risk / excess return profile of 1.27 in the last 5 years of Gold-Currency Strategy II, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark GLD (1.36)
• Looking at ratio of annual return and downside deviation in of 2.12 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to GLD (2.09).

Ulcer:

'Ulcer Index is a method for measuring investment risk that addresses the real concerns of investors, unlike the widely used standard deviation of return. UI is a measure of the depth and duration of drawdowns in prices from earlier highs. Using Ulcer Index instead of standard deviation can lead to very different conclusions about investment risk and risk-adjusted return, especially when evaluating strategies that seek to avoid major declines in portfolio value (market timing, dynamic asset allocation, hedge funds, etc.). The Ulcer Index was originally developed in 1987. Since then, it has been widely recognized and adopted by the investment community. According to Nelson Freeburg, editor of Formula Research, Ulcer Index is “perhaps the most fully realized statistical portrait of risk there is.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Ratio of 7.75 in the last 5 years of Gold-Currency Strategy II, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (8.83 )
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 6.09 , which is lower, thus better than the value of 7.97 from the benchmark.

MaxDD:

'Maximum drawdown measures the loss in any losing period during a fund’s investment record. It is defined as the percent retrenchment from a fund’s peak value to the fund’s valley value. The drawdown is in effect from the time the fund’s retrenchment begins until a new fund high is reached. The maximum drawdown encompasses both the period from the fund’s peak to the fund’s valley (length), and the time from the fund’s valley to a new fund high (recovery). It measures the largest percentage drawdown that has occurred in any fund’s data record.'

• Compared with the benchmark GLD (-26.4 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley of -19.2 days of Gold-Currency Strategy II is greater, thus better.
• Compared with GLD (-26.4 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -19.2 days is greater, thus better.

MaxDuration:

'The Maximum Drawdown Duration is an extension of the Maximum Drawdown. However, this metric does not explain the drawdown in dollars or percentages, rather in days, weeks, or months. It is the length of time the account was in the Max Drawdown. A Max Drawdown measures a retrenchment from when an equity curve reaches a new high. It’s the maximum an account lost during that retrenchment. This method is applied because a valley can’t be measured until a new high occurs. Once the new high is reached, the percentage change from the old high to the bottom of the largest trough is recorded.'

• Looking at the maximum days below previous high of 590 days in the last 5 years of Gold-Currency Strategy II, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark GLD (436 days)
• Compared with GLD (144 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 144 days is greater, thus worse.

AveDuration:

'The Drawdown Duration is the length of any peak to peak period, or the time between new equity highs. The Avg Drawdown Duration is the average amount of time an investment has seen between peaks (equity highs), or in other terms the average of time under water of all drawdowns. So in contrast to the Maximum duration it does not measure only one drawdown event but calculates the average of all.'

• Looking at the average time in days below previous high water mark of 168 days in the last 5 years of Gold-Currency Strategy II, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark GLD (102 days)
• Compared with GLD (29 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 30 days is larger, thus worse.