Linear Technology (LLTC)

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (90%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or performance of 124.1% of Linear Technology is higher, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 47%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 85% from the benchmark.

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 performance (CAGR) over 5 years of Linear Technology is 17.5%, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (13.8%) in the same period.
• Looking at annual return (CAGR) in of 13.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (22.9%).

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 (17.2%) in the period of the last 5 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 23.8% of Linear Technology is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility is 26.8%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 15.3% from the benchmark.

DownVol:

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

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk of 13.8% of Linear Technology is higher, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk is 14.8%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 10.2% from the benchmark.

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 (0.66) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.63 of Linear Technology is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio is 0.42, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.33 from the benchmark.

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio improves upon the Sharpe ratio by isolating downside volatility from total volatility by dividing excess return by the downside deviation. The Sortino ratio is a variation of the Sharpe ratio that differentiates harmful volatility from total overall volatility by using the asset's standard deviation of negative asset returns, called downside deviation. The Sortino ratio takes the asset's return and subtracts the risk-free rate, and then divides that amount by the asset's downside deviation. The ratio was named after Frank A. Sortino.'

• Looking at the downside risk / excess return profile of 1.09 in the last 5 years of Linear Technology, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.96)
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile is 0.75, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 2 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 (8.45 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Index of 7.81 of Linear Technology is smaller, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the Downside risk index is 9.25 , which is greater, thus worse than the value of 3.23 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 Linear Technology is -23.5 days, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -23.5 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-18.8 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'

• The maximum time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of Linear Technology is 343 days, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum days under water in of 343 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, 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.'

• Looking at the average days under water of 89 days in the last 5 years of Linear Technology, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (119 days)
• Compared with SPY (17 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 123 days is larger, thus worse.