CDW (CDW)

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 196.9% in the last 5 years of CDW, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (78.4%)
• Compared with SPY (44.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return of 58.8% is higher, 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 performance (CAGR) of 24.3% in the last 5 years of CDW, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (12.3%)
• During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 16.6%, which is higher, thus better than the value of 12.9% from the benchmark.

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.'

• Looking at the historical 30 days volatility of 31.9% in the last 5 years of CDW, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (19.9%)
• During the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation is 36.1%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 23.1% from the benchmark.

DownVol:

'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.'

• Looking at the downside deviation of 22.2% in the last 5 years of CDW, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (14.6%)
• Looking at downside risk in of 25.5% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (16.9%).

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 0.68 in the last 5 years of CDW, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.49)
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of 0.39 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.45).

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.'

• Looking at the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.98 in the last 5 years of CDW, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.67)
• Looking at excess return divided by the downside deviation in of 0.55 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.62).

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.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Ratio of 11 in the last 5 years of CDW, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (6.16 )
• Looking at Ulcer Index in of 13 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (6.87 ).

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.'

• Looking at the maximum reduction from previous high of -44.8 days in the last 5 years of CDW, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days)
• Compared with SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -44.8 days is lower, 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). 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 (139 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days under water of 219 days of CDW is larger, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (119 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 219 days is greater, 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.'

• The average time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of CDW is 41 days, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (35 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (27 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 54 days is larger, thus worse.