lululemon (LULU)

TotalReturn:

'Total return, when measuring performance, is the actual rate of return of an investment or a pool of investments over a given evaluation period. Total return includes interest, capital gains, dividends and distributions realized over a given period of time. Total return accounts for two categories of return: income including interest paid by fixed-income investments, distributions or dividends and capital appreciation, representing the change in the market price of an asset.'

• Looking at the total return of -43.6% in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (89.4%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is -41.5%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 76.1% 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (13.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of -10.9% of lululemon is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (20.9%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of -16.4% is lower, thus worse.

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.'

• The historical 30 days volatility over 5 years of lululemon is 41.4%, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17.1%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the volatility is 41.3%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 15.2% from the benchmark.

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 lululemon is 30.4%, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 30.9%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 10.2% 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.'

• Looking at the Sharpe Ratio of -0.32 in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.65)
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) is -0.46, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.21 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.95) in the period of the last 5 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of -0.44 of lululemon is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of -0.61 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.81).

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 (8.42 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 35 of lululemon is higher, thus worse.
• Looking at Ulcer Ratio in of 39 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (3.42 ).

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.'

• Looking at the maximum drop from peak to valley of -68.7 days in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days)
• During the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high is -68.7 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'

• Looking at the maximum days below previous high of 536 days in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (488 days)
• Compared with SPY (87 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days below previous high of 536 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.'

• The average days below previous high over 5 years of lululemon is 231 days, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (119 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark is 202 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 19 days from the benchmark.