lululemon (LULU)

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 (97.3%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return of -45.4% of lululemon is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is -42%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 78.3% from the benchmark.

CAGR:

'Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is a business and investing specific term for the geometric progression ratio that provides a constant rate of return over the time period. CAGR is not an accounting term, but it is often used to describe some element of the business, for example revenue, units delivered, registered users, etc. CAGR dampens the effect of volatility of periodic returns that can render arithmetic means irrelevant. It is particularly useful to compare growth rates from various data sets of common domain such as revenue growth of companies in the same industry.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (14.6%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual return (CAGR) of -11.4% of lululemon is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) is -16.7%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 21.4% 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 41.2% in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17.1%)
• During the last 3 years, the volatility is 41%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 15.2% from the benchmark.

DownVol:

'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 risk of 30.2% in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (11.7%)
• Compared with SPY (10.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside volatility of 30.6% 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 lululemon is -0.34, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.71) in the same period.
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of -0.47 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.24).

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.'

• Looking at the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of -0.46 in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (1.03)
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation is -0.63, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 1.85 from the benchmark.

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.'

• The Ulcer Ratio over 5 years of lululemon is 35 , which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (8.42 ) in the same period.
• Looking at Downside risk index in of 38 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (3.51 ).

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 reduction from previous high over 5 years of lululemon is -68.7 days, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (-18.8 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley of -68.7 days is lower, thus worse.

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 under water of 520 days in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (488 days)
• Looking at maximum days below previous high in of 520 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.'

• The average days under water over 5 years of lululemon is 226 days, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (120 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark is 192 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 21 days from the benchmark.