Johnson & Johnson (JNJ)

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.'

• The total return over 5 years of Johnson & Johnson is 80.3%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (88%) in the same period.
• Looking at total return, or performance in of 20.2% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (39.5%).

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 Johnson & Johnson is 12.5%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.5%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 6.3%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 11.7% 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 (18.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 19.7% of Johnson & Johnson is higher, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (22.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 23.2% 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.'

• Looking at the downside deviation of 14% in the last 5 years of Johnson & Johnson, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (13.7%)
• Looking at downside volatility in of 16.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (16.5%).

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 (0.58) in the period of the last 5 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.51 of Johnson & Johnson is smaller, thus worse.
• Looking at ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) in of 0.16 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.41).

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 Johnson & Johnson is 0.71, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.8) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation is 0.23, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 0.56 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (5.79 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 7.1 of Johnson & Johnson is higher, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the Downside risk index is 8.58 , which is higher, thus worse than the value of 7.08 from the benchmark.

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.'

• The maximum drop from peak to valley over 5 years of Johnson & Johnson is -27.4 days, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown is -27.4 days, which is greater, thus better than the value of -33.7 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) in days.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (139 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days below previous high of 255 days of Johnson & Johnson is larger, thus worse.
• Looking at maximum time in days below previous high water mark in of 255 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (139 days).

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 days below previous high over 5 years of Johnson & Johnson is 65 days, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (37 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (45 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 83 days is greater, thus worse.