iShares Global Materials ETF (MXI)

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (89.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return of 56.9% of iShares Global Materials ETF is smaller, thus worse.
• Looking at total return, or increase in value in of 45.9% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (76.4%).

CAGR:

'The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is a useful measure of growth over multiple time periods. It can be thought of as the growth rate that gets you from the initial investment value to the ending investment value if you assume that the investment has been compounding over the time period.'

• The annual return (CAGR) over 5 years of iShares Global Materials ETF is 9.5%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.7%) in the same period.
• Looking at annual performance (CAGR) in of 13.5% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (21%).

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%) in the period of the last 5 years, the volatility of 19.2% of iShares Global Materials ETF is greater, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the volatility is 17.3%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 15.2% from the benchmark.

DownVol:

'Downside risk is the financial risk associated with losses. That is, it is the risk of the actual return being below the expected return, or the uncertainty about the magnitude of that difference. 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (11.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk of 13.2% of iShares Global Materials ETF is higher, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (10.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk of 12% is larger, thus worse.

Sharpe:

'The Sharpe ratio is the measure of risk-adjusted return of a financial portfolio. Sharpe ratio is a measure of excess portfolio return over the risk-free rate relative to its standard deviation. Normally, the 90-day Treasury bill rate is taken as the proxy for risk-free rate. A portfolio with a higher Sharpe ratio is considered superior relative to its peers. The measure was named after William F Sharpe, a Nobel laureate and professor of finance, emeritus at Stanford University.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.66) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.36 of iShares Global Materials ETF is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (1.22) in the period of the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.63 is lower, thus worse.

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio measures the risk-adjusted return of an investment asset, portfolio, or strategy. It is a modification of the Sharpe ratio but penalizes only those returns falling below a user-specified target or required rate of return, while the Sharpe ratio penalizes both upside and downside volatility equally. Though both ratios measure an investment's risk-adjusted return, they do so in significantly different ways that will frequently lead to differing conclusions as to the true nature of the investment's return-generating efficiency. The Sortino ratio is used as a way to compare the risk-adjusted performance of programs with differing risk and return profiles. In general, risk-adjusted returns seek to normalize the risk across programs and then see which has the higher return unit per risk.'

• Looking at the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.53 in the last 5 years of iShares Global Materials ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.96)
• Compared with SPY (1.82) in the period of the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.92 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.'

• Looking at the Downside risk index of 9.56 in the last 5 years of iShares Global Materials ETF, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.42 )
• Looking at Ulcer Ratio in of 6.64 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (3.48 ).

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.'

• Looking at the maximum DrawDown of -28.8 days in the last 5 years of iShares Global Materials 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 -22.3 days is lower, 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'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days below previous high of 492 days of iShares Global Materials ETF is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark is 238 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 87 days from the benchmark.

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 151 days in the last 5 years of iShares Global Materials ETF, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (119 days)
• During the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark is 60 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 19 days from the benchmark.