Global X Social Media ETF (SOCL)

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.'

• The total return, or increase in value over 5 years of Global X Social Media ETF is -33.9%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (80.9%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is 32.5%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 75.3% 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 (12.6%) in the period of the last 5 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of -8% of Global X Social Media ETF is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) is 9.9%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 20.7% from the benchmark.

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.'

• Looking at the volatility of 29.6% in the last 5 years of Global X Social Media ETF, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17%)
• During the last 3 years, the volatility is 24.3%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 15% from the benchmark.

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 Global X Social Media ETF is 20.5%, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (11.7%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 16.4%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 10.1% from the benchmark.

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.'

• The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Global X Social Media ETF is -0.35, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.6) in the same period.
• Looking at risk / return profile (Sharpe) in of 0.3 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.21).

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.'

• Looking at the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of -0.51 in the last 5 years of Global X Social Media ETF, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.86)
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of 0.45 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.81).

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 40 in the last 5 years of Global X Social Media ETF, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.43 )
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index is 8.57 , which is larger, thus worse than the value of 3.41 from the benchmark.

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 -66.3 days in the last 5 years of Global X Social Media ETF, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days)
• Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -27.2 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). 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'

• Looking at the maximum days below previous high of 1185 days in the last 5 years of Global X Social Media ETF, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (488 days)
• Compared with SPY (87 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 126 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (119 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 564 days of Global X Social Media ETF is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 37 days, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 19 days from the benchmark.