Applied Materials (AMAT)

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 (82.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or performance of 380.1% of Applied Materials is greater, thus better.
• Looking at total return, or performance in of 359.5% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to SPY (75.4%).

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 Applied Materials is 37%, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (12.9%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) is 66.6%, which is larger, thus better than the value of 20.7% from the benchmark.

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.'

• The historical 30 days volatility over 5 years of Applied Materials is 44.9%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17.1%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility is 45.6%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 15.3% 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside volatility of 30.6% of Applied Materials is greater, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 30.7%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 10.3% 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.'

• Looking at the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.77 in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.61)
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of 1.41 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 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.88) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 1.13 of Applied Materials is higher, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation is 2.09, which is greater, thus better than the value of 1.77 from the benchmark.

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.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Index of 24 in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.45 )
• During the last 3 years, the Downside risk index is 20 , which is higher, thus worse than the value of 3.52 from the benchmark.

MaxDD:

'A maximum drawdown is the maximum loss from a peak to a trough of a portfolio, before a new peak is attained. Maximum Drawdown is an indicator of downside risk over a specified time period. It can be used both as a stand-alone measure or as an input into other metrics such as 'Return over Maximum Drawdown' and the Calmar Ratio. Maximum Drawdown is expressed in percentage terms.'

• Looking at the maximum drop from peak to valley of -55.1 days in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, 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 -49.9 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 487 days of Applied Materials is lower, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum days under water is 348 days, which is larger, 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 156 days in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (119 days)
• Compared with SPY (20 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days below previous high of 95 days is higher, thus worse.