ASML Holding (ASML)

TotalReturn:

'Total return, when measuring performance, is the actual rate of return of an investment or a pool of investments over a given evaluation period. Total return includes interest, capital gains, dividends and distributions realized over a given period of time. Total return accounts for two categories of return: income including interest paid by fixed-income investments, distributions or dividends and capital appreciation, representing the change in the market price of an asset.'

• Looking at the total return of 163.8% in the last 5 years of ASML Holding, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (89.5%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 228.8%, which is higher, thus better than the value of 86.8% from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (13.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 21.5% of ASML Holding is higher, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 48.9%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 23.3% from the benchmark.

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 historical 30 days volatility over 5 years of ASML Holding is 43.4%, which is greater, 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 30 days standard deviation of 43.4% is higher, thus worse.

DownVol:

'Downside risk is the financial risk associated with losses. That is, it is the risk of the actual return being below the expected return, or the uncertainty about the magnitude of that difference. 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 volatility over 5 years of ASML Holding is 29.8%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 29.7%, 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 ASML Holding is 0.44, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.65) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (1.36) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 1.07 is smaller, thus worse.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.95) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.64 of ASML Holding is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile is 1.56, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 2.04 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (8.45 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 26 of ASML Holding is larger, thus worse.
• Looking at Ulcer Index in of 21 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (3.23 ).

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 DrawDown over 5 years of ASML Holding is -56.5 days, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum DrawDown in of -45.5 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.'

• The maximum days below previous high over 5 years of ASML Holding is 546 days, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (87 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 349 days is higher, thus worse.

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.'

• Looking at the average time in days below previous high water mark of 182 days in the last 5 years of ASML Holding, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (119 days)
• Compared with SPY (17 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 99 days is greater, thus worse.