Cintas (CTAS)

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 235.1% in the last 5 years of Cintas, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (66.6%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is 119.5%, which is larger, thus better than the value of 36.1% 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 compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of Cintas is 27.4%, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (10.8%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) is 30%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 10.8% from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (19%) in the period of the last 5 years, the volatility of 29% of Cintas is larger, thus worse.
• Looking at volatility in of 34.2% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (22%).

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.'

• The downside volatility over 5 years of Cintas is 20%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.9%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (16.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside volatility of 24% is greater, thus worse.

Sharpe:

'The Sharpe ratio (also known as the Sharpe index, the Sharpe measure, and the reward-to-variability ratio) is a way to examine the performance of an investment by adjusting for its risk. The ratio measures the excess return (or risk premium) per unit of deviation in an investment asset or a trading strategy, typically referred to as risk, named after William F. Sharpe.'

• The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Cintas is 0.86, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (0.43) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) is 0.8, which is larger, thus better than the value of 0.38 from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.59) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 1.24 of Cintas is larger, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation is 1.15, which is greater, thus better than the value of 0.52 from the benchmark.

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.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Ratio of 9.24 in the last 5 years of Cintas, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (5.9 )
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index is 11 , which is larger, thus worse than the value of 6.98 from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -48.4 days of Cintas is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at maximum drop from peak to valley in of -48.4 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-33.7 days).

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'

• Looking at the maximum days under water of 156 days in the last 5 years of Cintas, we see it is relatively lower, thus better 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 156 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 (44 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days below previous high of 32 days of Cintas is smaller, thus better.
• Looking at average days below previous high in of 33 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to SPY (41 days).