Lumentum (LITE)

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 performance over 5 years of Lumentum is 1076.3%, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (91.9%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (86%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or performance of 2279.7% 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 compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of Lumentum is 64.1%, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (14%) in the same period.
• Looking at compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in of 189.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to SPY (23.2%).

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.'

• Looking at the 30 days standard deviation of 64.3% in the last 5 years of Lumentum, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17.1%)
• Looking at historical 30 days volatility in of 75.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (15.3%).

DownVol:

'The downside volatility is similar to the volatility, or standard deviation, but only takes losing/negative periods into account.'

• The downside risk over 5 years of Lumentum is 42.7%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (10.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside deviation of 48.8% is higher, thus worse.

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.'

• The risk / return profile (Sharpe) over 5 years of Lumentum is 0.96, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (0.67) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) is 2.48, which is larger, thus better than the value of 1.35 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 Lumentum is 1.44, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (0.98) in the same period.
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of 3.84 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to SPY (2.04).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (8.45 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 37 of Lumentum is greater, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the Downside risk index is 17 , which is higher, thus worse than the value of 3.23 from the benchmark.

MaxDD:

'A maximum drawdown is the maximum loss from a peak to a trough of a portfolio, before a new peak is attained. Maximum Drawdown is an indicator of downside risk over a specified time period. It can be used both as a stand-alone measure or as an input into other metrics such as 'Return over Maximum Drawdown' and the Calmar Ratio. Maximum Drawdown is expressed in percentage terms.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -66.5 days of Lumentum is smaller, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown is -50.6 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 time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of Lumentum is 887 days, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum days below previous high in of 120 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (87 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (119 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days below previous high of 341 days of Lumentum is higher, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (17 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 33 days is higher, thus worse.