SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF (GNR)

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 SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is 65.9%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (82.6%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (77.8%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or performance of 43.8% is lower, thus worse.

CAGR:

'Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is a business and investing specific term for the geometric progression ratio that provides a constant rate of return over the time period. CAGR is not an accounting term, but it is often used to describe some element of the business, for example revenue, units delivered, registered users, etc. CAGR dampens the effect of volatility of periodic returns that can render arithmetic means irrelevant. It is particularly useful to compare growth rates from various data sets of common domain such as revenue growth of companies in the same industry.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (12.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 10.7% of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is smaller, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (21.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13% is lower, thus worse.

Volatility:

'Volatility is a rate at which the price of a security increases or decreases for a given set of returns. Volatility is measured by calculating the standard deviation of the annualized returns over a given period of time. It shows the range to which the price of a security may increase or decrease. Volatility measures the risk of a security. It is used in option pricing formula to gauge the fluctuations in the returns of the underlying assets. Volatility indicates the pricing behavior of the security and helps estimate the fluctuations that may happen in a short period of time.'

• The historical 30 days volatility over 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is 20.3%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17.1%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (15.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 17.6% is higher, thus worse.

DownVol:

'Risk measures typically quantify the downside risk, whereas the standard deviation (an example of a deviation risk measure) measures both the upside and downside risk. Specifically, downside risk in our definition is the semi-deviation, that is the standard deviation of all negative returns.'

• The downside volatility over 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is 14.4%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (10.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk of 12.4% is greater, thus worse.

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.'

• Looking at the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.4 in the last 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.61)
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) is 0.6, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.24 from the benchmark.

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio improves upon the Sharpe ratio by isolating downside volatility from total volatility by dividing excess return by the downside deviation. The Sortino ratio is a variation of the Sharpe ratio that differentiates harmful volatility from total overall volatility by using the asset's standard deviation of negative asset returns, called downside deviation. The Sortino ratio takes the asset's return and subtracts the risk-free rate, and then divides that amount by the asset's downside deviation. The ratio was named after Frank A. Sortino.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.88) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.57 of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (1.86) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.84 is smaller, 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 (8.45 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 8.63 of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (3.51 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 5.95 is greater, thus worse.

MaxDD:

'Maximum drawdown is defined as the peak-to-trough decline of an investment during a specific period. It is usually quoted as a percentage of the peak value. The maximum drawdown can be calculated based on absolute returns, in order to identify strategies that suffer less during market downturns, such as low-volatility strategies. However, the maximum drawdown can also be calculated based on returns relative to a benchmark index, for identifying strategies that show steady outperformance over time.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -25.7 days of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at maximum DrawDown in of -21.1 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-18.8 days).

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) in days.'

• The maximum days below previous high over 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is 522 days, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (87 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 314 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.'

• The average days under water over 5 years of SPDR S&P Global Natural Resources ETF is 169 days, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (119 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 86 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 20 days from the benchmark.