Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF (LUXE)

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.'

• Looking at the total return of % in the last 5 years of Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (97.2%)
• Looking at total return in of -25.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (80.6%).

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.'

• Looking at the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of % in the last 5 years of Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (14.6%)
• Looking at annual performance (CAGR) in of -9.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (21.8%).

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 (17.1%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of % of Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF is smaller, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation is 77%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 15.2% from the benchmark.

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 Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF is %, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the same period.
• Looking at downside volatility in of 46% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (10.2%).

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 Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF is , which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.71) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (1.27) in the period of the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio of -0.15 is lower, 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.'

• The ratio of annual return and downside deviation over 5 years of Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF is , which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (1.03) in the same period.
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of -0.26 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.9).

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 in the last 5 years of Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.42 )
• Compared with SPY (3.51 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 53 is greater, thus worse.

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.'

• Looking at the maximum reduction from previous high of days in the last 5 years of Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days)
• Compared with SPY (-18.8 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley of -82.8 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) in days.'

• The maximum days below previous high over 5 years of Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF is days, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum days under water in of 510 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.'

• The average time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of Emles Trust Emles Luxury Goods ETF is days, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (120 days) in the same period.
• Looking at average time in days below previous high water mark in of 211 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (21 days).