SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR)

TotalReturn:

'The total return on a portfolio of investments takes into account not only the capital appreciation on the portfolio, but also the income received on the portfolio. The income typically consists of interest, dividends, and securities lending fees. This contrasts with the price return, which takes into account only the capital gain on an investment.'

• The total return over 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is 16.2%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (67.7%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 15.5%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 46.7% from the benchmark.

CAGR:

'The compound annual growth rate isn't a true return rate, but rather a representational figure. It is essentially a number that describes the rate at which an investment would have grown if it had grown the same rate every year and the profits were reinvested at the end of each year. In reality, this sort of performance is unlikely. However, CAGR can be used to smooth returns so that they may be more easily understood when compared to alternative investments.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (10.9%) in the period of the last 5 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 3.1% of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is smaller, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (13.7%) in the period of the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.9% is smaller, thus worse.

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 SPY (13.5%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 18% of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is larger, thus worse.
• Looking at volatility in of 14.5% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (12.8%).

DownVol:

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

• Looking at the downside deviation of 18.8% in the last 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (14.8%)
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 15.6%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 14.6% 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 SPY (0.62) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.03 of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) is 0.17, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 0.87 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.'

• The ratio of annual return and downside deviation over 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is 0.03, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.57) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (0.76) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.16 is lower, thus worse.

Ulcer:

'The ulcer index is a stock market risk measure or technical analysis indicator devised by Peter Martin in 1987, and published by him and Byron McCann in their 1989 book The Investors Guide to Fidelity Funds. It's designed as a measure of volatility, but only volatility in the downward direction, i.e. the amount of drawdown or retracement occurring over a period. Other volatility measures like standard deviation treat up and down movement equally, but a trader doesn't mind upward movement, it's the downside that causes stress and stomach ulcers that the index's name suggests.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (3.99 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 14 of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (4.1 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 8.96 is greater, thus worse.

MaxDD:

'A maximum drawdown is the maximum loss from a peak to a trough of a portfolio, before a new peak is attained. Maximum Drawdown is an indicator of downside risk over a specified time period. It can be used both as a stand-alone measure or as an input into other metrics such as 'Return over Maximum Drawdown' and the Calmar Ratio. Maximum Drawdown is expressed in percentage terms.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-19.3 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -39.2 days of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is smaller, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (-19.3 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -23 days is smaller, thus worse.

MaxDuration:

'The Drawdown Duration is the length of any peak to peak period, or the time between new equity highs. The Max Drawdown Duration is the worst (the maximum/longest) amount of time an investment has seen between peaks (equity highs). Many assume Max DD Duration is the length of time between new highs during which the Max DD (magnitude) occurred. But that isn’t always the case. The Max DD duration is the longest time between peaks, period. So it could be the time when the program also had its biggest peak to valley loss (and usually is, because the program needs a long time to recover from the largest loss), but it doesn’t have to be'

• The maximum days under water over 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is 553 days, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (187 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum time in days below previous high water mark in of 392 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (139 days).

AveDuration:

'The Average 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. 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (42 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 196 days of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (36 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 126 days is greater, thus worse.