Minimum Volatility Portfolio

TotalReturn:

'Total return is the amount of value an investor earns from a security over a specific period, typically one year, when all distributions are reinvested. Total return is expressed as a percentage of the amount invested. For example, a total return of 20% means the security increased by 20% of its original value due to a price increase, distribution of dividends (if a stock), coupons (if a bond) or capital gains (if a fund). Total return is a strong measure of an investment’s overall performance.'

• The total return, or performance over 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is 31.8%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (101.3%) in the same period.
• Looking at total return, or performance in of 21.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (77.2%).

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 (15.1%) in the period of the last 5 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.7% of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (21.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of 6.8% is lower, 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 volatility of 3.2% of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is lower, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the volatility is 3.1%, which is lower, thus better than the value of 15.6% 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 risk over 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is 2.1%, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 2%, which is smaller, thus better than the value of 10.4% from the benchmark.

Sharpe:

'The Sharpe ratio (also known as the Sharpe index, the Sharpe measure, and the reward-to-variability ratio) is a way to examine the performance of an investment by adjusting for its risk. The ratio measures the excess return (or risk premium) per unit of deviation in an investment asset or a trading strategy, typically referred to as risk, named after William F. Sharpe.'

• The ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) over 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is 1.01, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (0.74) in the same period.
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of 1.39 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to SPY (1.19).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (1.07) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 1.52 of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is greater, thus better.
• Looking at excess return divided by the downside deviation in of 2.12 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to SPY (1.79).

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.'

• The Ulcer Ratio over 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is 0.98 , which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (8.41 ) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (3.61 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index of 0.71 is lower, thus better.

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.'

• The maximum reduction from previous high over 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is -2.7 days, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum DrawDown in of -2.4 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better 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'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days under water of 291 days of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is smaller, thus better.
• Looking at maximum days under water in of 86 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to SPY (87 days).

AveDuration:

'The Average 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. 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 days under water over 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is 58 days, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (120 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 25 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 21 days from the benchmark.