Goldman Sachs Group (GS)

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 303.8% in the last 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (115.2%)
• Compared with SPY (70.9%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return of 157.9% is larger, thus better.

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.'

• The annual return (CAGR) over 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group is 32.3%, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (16.6%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 37.4%, which is higher, thus better than the value of 19.7% 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (17.6%) in the period of the last 5 years, the volatility of 27.9% of Goldman Sachs Group is higher, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility is 27.9%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 17.5% 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 risk of 18.3% in the last 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (12.1%)
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 18.2%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 11.6% from the benchmark.

Sharpe:

'The Sharpe ratio is the measure of risk-adjusted return of a financial portfolio. Sharpe ratio is a measure of excess portfolio return over the risk-free rate relative to its standard deviation. Normally, the 90-day Treasury bill rate is taken as the proxy for risk-free rate. A portfolio with a higher Sharpe ratio is considered superior relative to its peers. The measure was named after William F Sharpe, a Nobel laureate and professor of finance, emeritus at Stanford University.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.81) in the period of the last 5 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 1.07 of Goldman Sachs Group is larger, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is larger, thus better than the value of 0.98 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.'

• The ratio of annual return and downside deviation over 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group is 1.63, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (1.17) in the same period.
• Looking at ratio of annual return and downside deviation in of 1.92 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to SPY (1.49).

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 Downside risk index of 13 in the last 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.48 )
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 9.82 , which is larger, thus worse than the value of 5.31 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.'

• The maximum drop from peak to valley over 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group is -32.8 days, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high is -30.9 days, which is lower, 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'

• The maximum days under water over 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group is 596 days, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (199 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 263 days is greater, 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 days under water of 165 days in the last 5 years of Goldman Sachs Group, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (120 days)
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 63 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 47 days from the benchmark.