VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF (HAP)

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.'

• Looking at the total return, or increase in value of 74.4% in the last 5 years of VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (129.1%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 41.8%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 71.3% 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 (18.1%) in the period of the last 5 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 11.8% of VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF is smaller, thus worse.
• Looking at annual performance (CAGR) in of 12.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (19.7%).

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 (18.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 21.2% of VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (22.5%) in the period of the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 25.5% is greater, 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 deviation over 5 years of VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF is 15.7%, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.6%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 19%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 16.3% 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 (0.83) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.44 of VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (0.76) in the period of the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.39 is smaller, thus worse.

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 excess return divided by the downside deviation over 5 years of VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF is 0.59, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (1.15) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation is 0.52, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.05 from the benchmark.

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.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Index of 9.76 in the last 5 years of VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (5.59 )
• Compared with SPY (6.38 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Downside risk index of 11 is higher, 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.'

• Looking at the maximum DrawDown of -44.1 days in the last 5 years of VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days)
• Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -43.9 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-33.7 days).

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.'

• The maximum days under water over 5 years of VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF is 711 days, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (139 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum days below previous high in of 226 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (119 days).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (32 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days below previous high of 231 days of VanEck Vectors Natural Resources ETF is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the average days below previous high is 63 days, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 25 days from the benchmark.