lululemon (LULU)

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.'

• Looking at the total return of -48.3% in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (75.3%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is -57.2%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 66.5% 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 (11.9%) in the period of the last 5 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of -12.4% of lululemon is smaller, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (18.6%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) of -24.7% is smaller, 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (17%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 41.5% of lululemon is larger, thus worse.
• Looking at volatility in of 41.1% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (15.1%).

DownVol:

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

• Looking at the downside risk of 30.4% in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (11.8%)
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 31.3%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 10.1% 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.'

• Looking at the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of -0.36 in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.55)
• Looking at ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) in of -0.66 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.06).

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.'

• The downside risk / excess return profile over 5 years of lululemon is -0.49, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.8) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile is -0.87, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.59 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.'

• Looking at the Downside risk index of 37 in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.44 )
• Looking at Downside risk index in of 41 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (3.49 ).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -71.5 days of lululemon is smaller, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley is -71.5 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.'

• The maximum days below previous high over 5 years of lululemon is 565 days, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum days under water in of 565 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (87 days).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (119 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 245 days of lululemon is larger, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (20 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 223 days is larger, thus worse.