ASML Holding (ASML)

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, or performance of 167.5% in the last 5 years of ASML Holding, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (36.4%)
• Compared with SPY (14.9%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or performance of 97.1% is larger, thus better.

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.'

• Looking at the annual return (CAGR) of 21.7% in the last 5 years of ASML Holding, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (6.4%)
• Compared with SPY (4.7%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of 25.3% is larger, thus better.

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 volatility over 5 years of ASML Holding is 32%, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17.8%) in the same period.
• Looking at volatility in of 35% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (20%).

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 risk over 5 years of ASML Holding is 22.7%, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.2%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (15.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk of 25.3% is greater, thus worse.

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 0.6 in the last 5 years of ASML Holding, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.22)
• Looking at risk / return profile (Sharpe) in of 0.65 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to SPY (0.11).

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.'

• Looking at the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.85 in the last 5 years of ASML Holding, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.3)
• Compared with SPY (0.15) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.9 is higher, thus better.

Ulcer:

'Ulcer Index is a method for measuring investment risk that addresses the real concerns of investors, unlike the widely used standard deviation of return. UI is a measure of the depth and duration of drawdowns in prices from earlier highs. Using Ulcer Index instead of standard deviation can lead to very different conclusions about investment risk and risk-adjusted return, especially when evaluating strategies that seek to avoid major declines in portfolio value (market timing, dynamic asset allocation, hedge funds, etc.). The Ulcer Index was originally developed in 1987. Since then, it has been widely recognized and adopted by the investment community. According to Nelson Freeburg, editor of Formula Research, Ulcer Index is “perhaps the most fully realized statistical portrait of risk there is.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (4.93 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 12 of ASML Holding is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (5.58 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index of 11 is larger, thus worse.

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.'

• The maximum reduction from previous high over 5 years of ASML Holding is -37.9 days, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown of -37.9 days is smaller, 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) in days.'

• Looking at the maximum days under water of 408 days in the last 5 years of ASML Holding, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (187 days)
• Compared with SPY (139 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 247 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (42 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 105 days of ASML Holding is higher, thus worse.
• Looking at average days under water in of 54 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (36 days).