ASML Holding (ASML)

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 ASML Holding is 111.9%, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (110.9%) in the same period.
• Looking at total return in of 87.9% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to SPY (69.3%).

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.'

• Looking at the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 16.3% in the last 5 years of ASML Holding, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (16.1%)
• Compared with SPY (19.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 23.5% is higher, thus better.

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.'

• The 30 days standard deviation over 5 years of ASML Holding is 41.4%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17.5%) in the same period.
• Looking at 30 days standard deviation in of 41.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (17.5%).

DownVol:

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

• The downside deviation over 5 years of ASML Holding is 28.6%, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (12.1%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 28.7%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 11.5% 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.78) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.33 of ASML Holding is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) in of 0.5 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.96).

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.'

• Looking at the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.48 in the last 5 years of ASML Holding, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (1.13)
• Looking at ratio of annual return and downside deviation in of 0.73 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.46).

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 ASML Holding is 25 , which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (8.48 ) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (5.3 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Downside risk index of 21 is greater, thus worse.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -56.8 days of ASML Holding is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown is -45.5 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 days under water of 592 days of ASML Holding is higher, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark is 251 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 199 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 (120 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days below previous high of 181 days of ASML Holding is greater, thus worse.
• Looking at average days below previous high in of 65 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (47 days).