iShares Latin America 40 ETF (ILF)

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, or increase in value over 5 years of iShares Latin America 40 ETF is 86.4%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (99%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 68.1%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 78.3% 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.'

• The compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of iShares Latin America 40 ETF is 13.3%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (14.8%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (21.4%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 19% is smaller, 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (17.1%) in the period of the last 5 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 23.1% of iShares Latin America 40 ETF is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (15.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the volatility of 20% is larger, thus worse.

DownVol:

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

• The downside deviation over 5 years of iShares Latin America 40 ETF is 16.3%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (11.7%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 13.7%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 10.2% 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.'

• The ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) over 5 years of iShares Latin America 40 ETF is 0.47, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.72) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (1.24) in the period of the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.83 is smaller, thus worse.

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 (1.05) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.66 of iShares Latin America 40 ETF is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of 1.2 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.86).

Ulcer:

'The Ulcer Index is a technical indicator that measures downside risk, in terms of both the depth and duration of price declines. The index increases in value as the price moves farther away from a recent high and falls as the price rises to new highs. The indicator is usually calculated over a 14-day period, with the Ulcer Index showing the percentage drawdown a trader can expect from the high over that period. The greater the value of the Ulcer Index, the longer it takes for a stock to get back to the former high.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (8.42 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 12 of iShares Latin America 40 ETF is greater, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 9.26 , which is higher, thus worse than the value of 3.52 from the benchmark.

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.'

• The maximum DrawDown over 5 years of iShares Latin America 40 ETF is -29.7 days, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown is -24 days, which is lower, thus worse than the value of -18.8 days from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days below previous high of 416 days of iShares Latin America 40 ETF is smaller, thus better.
• Looking at maximum days under water in of 416 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (87 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.'

• Looking at the average time in days below previous high water mark of 133 days in the last 5 years of iShares Latin America 40 ETF, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (120 days)
• During the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark is 137 days, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 21 days from the benchmark.