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.'

• Looking at the total return of 248.9% in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (81.9%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return is 202.3%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 77.2% 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.'

• The annual performance (CAGR) over 5 years of Applied Materials is 28.5%, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (12.8%) in the same period.
• Looking at compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in of 44.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to SPY (21.1%).

Volatility:

'Volatility is a statistical measure of the dispersion of returns for a given security or market index. Volatility can either be measured by using the standard deviation or variance between returns from that same security or market index. Commonly, the higher the volatility, the riskier the security. In the securities markets, volatility is often associated with big swings in either direction. For example, when the stock market rises and falls more than one percent over a sustained period of time, it is called a 'volatile' market.'

• Looking at the 30 days standard deviation of 47% in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17.2%)
• During the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation is 48.7%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 15.3% from the benchmark.

DownVol:

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

• Looking at the downside deviation of 32.1% in the last 5 years of Applied Materials, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (11.8%)
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 33%, which is higher, 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.'

• The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Applied Materials is 0.55, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.6) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) is 0.87, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.21 from the benchmark.

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 (0.87) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.81 of Applied Materials is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile is 1.28, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.81 from the benchmark.

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 Index over 5 years of Applied Materials is 25 , which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (8.46 ) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the Downside risk index is 22 , which is larger, thus worse than the value of 3.37 from the benchmark.

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.'

• The maximum drop from peak to valley over 5 years of Applied Materials is -55.1 days, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high is -49.9 days, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of -18.8 days from the benchmark.

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 time in days below previous high water mark of 487 days of Applied Materials is lower, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum days below previous high is 348 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 87 days from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (118 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 157 days of Applied Materials is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 96 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 18 days from the benchmark.