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.'

• The total return, or performance over 5 years of Applied Materials is 252.4%, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (82.8%) in the same period.
• Looking at total return, or performance in of 225% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to SPY (80.4%).

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.'

• The annual performance (CAGR) over 5 years of Applied Materials is 28.8%, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (12.9%) in the same period.
• Looking at annual performance (CAGR) in of 48.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to SPY (21.8%).

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.'

• The volatility over 5 years of Applied Materials is 47%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17.2%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (15.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 48.6% is greater, thus worse.

DownVol:

'The downside volatility is similar to the volatility, or standard deviation, but only takes losing/negative periods into account.'

• Looking at the downside volatility of 32% in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (11.8%)
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk is 33%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 10.2% 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.'

• The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Applied Materials is 0.56, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.6) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) is 0.94, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.26 from the benchmark.

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 excess return divided by the downside deviation over 5 years of Applied Materials is 0.82, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.88) in the same period.
• Looking at excess return divided by the downside deviation in of 1.39 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.89).

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 25 in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.45 )
• Compared with SPY (3.37 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index of 21 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.'

• The maximum reduction from previous high over 5 years of Applied Materials is -55.1 days, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -49.9 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 Maximum 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. It is the length of time the account was in the Max Drawdown. A Max Drawdown measures a retrenchment from when an equity curve reaches a new high. It’s the maximum an account lost during that retrenchment. This method is applied because a valley can’t be measured until a new high occurs. Once the new high is reached, the percentage change from the old high to the bottom of the largest trough is recorded.'

• Looking at the maximum days below previous high of 487 days in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, we see it is relatively lower, thus better 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 348 days is larger, 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.'

• Looking at the average days below previous high of 156 days in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (118 days)
• Looking at average time in days below previous high water mark in of 96 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (18 days).