KLA (KLAC)

TotalReturn:

'Total return is the amount of value an investor earns from a security over a specific period, typically one year, when all distributions are reinvested. Total return is expressed as a percentage of the amount invested. For example, a total return of 20% means the security increased by 20% of its original value due to a price increase, distribution of dividends (if a stock), coupons (if a bond) or capital gains (if a fund). Total return is a strong measure of an investment’s overall performance.'

• The total return, or increase in value over 5 years of KLA is 428.8%, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (83%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is 245.5%, which is higher, thus better than the value of 81.5% 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.'

• Looking at the annual return (CAGR) of 39.7% in the last 5 years of KLA, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (12.9%)
• During the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) is 51.4%, which is larger, thus better than the value of 22.1% 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.'

• Looking at the volatility of 46.7% in the last 5 years of KLA, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17.1%)
• Looking at historical 30 days volatility in of 49.1% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (15.3%).

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 volatility of 32% in the last 5 years of KLA, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (11.8%)
• Looking at downside deviation in of 34% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (10.2%).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.61) in the period of the last 5 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.8 of KLA is larger, thus better.
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of 1 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.28).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.88) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 1.16 of KLA is higher, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (1.93) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 1.44 is smaller, thus worse.

Ulcer:

'The ulcer index is a stock market risk measure or technical analysis indicator devised by Peter Martin in 1987, and published by him and Byron McCann in their 1989 book The Investors Guide to Fidelity Funds. It's designed as a measure of volatility, but only volatility in the downward direction, i.e. the amount of drawdown or retracement occurring over a period. Other volatility measures like standard deviation treat up and down movement equally, but a trader doesn't mind upward movement, it's the downside that causes stress and stomach ulcers that the index's name suggests.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (8.45 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Index of 17 of KLA is higher, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (3.22 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 17 is larger, thus worse.

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 KLA is -45 days, which is lower, 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 -45 days, which is lower, thus worse than the value of -18.8 days from the benchmark.

MaxDuration:

'The Maximum 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. It is the length of time the account was in the Max Drawdown. A Max Drawdown measures a retrenchment from when an equity curve reaches a new high. It’s the maximum an account lost during that retrenchment. This method is applied because a valley can’t be measured until a new high occurs. Once the new high is reached, the percentage change from the old high to the bottom of the largest trough is recorded.'

• Looking at the maximum days below previous high of 341 days in the last 5 years of KLA, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (488 days)
• During the last 3 years, the maximum days below previous high is 233 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 87 days from the benchmark.

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 KLA is 83 days, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (118 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 52 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 17 days from the benchmark.