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 (97.4%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or performance of -40.5% of lululemon is smaller, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is -35%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 80.7% 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.'

• The annual performance (CAGR) over 5 years of lululemon is -9.9%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (14.6%) in the same period.
• Looking at compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in of -13.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (21.9%).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (17.1%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 41.1% of lululemon is higher, thus worse.
• Looking at historical 30 days volatility in of 40.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (15.2%).

DownVol:

'Downside risk is the financial risk associated with losses. That is, it is the risk of the actual return being below the expected return, or the uncertainty about the magnitude of that difference. 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside deviation of 30% of lululemon is higher, thus worse.
• Looking at downside risk in of 30.3% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (10.2%).

Sharpe:

'The Sharpe ratio (also known as the Sharpe index, the Sharpe measure, and the reward-to-variability ratio) is a way to examine the performance of an investment by adjusting for its risk. The ratio measures the excess return (or risk premium) per unit of deviation in an investment asset or a trading strategy, typically referred to as risk, named after William F. Sharpe.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.71) in the period of the last 5 years, the Sharpe Ratio of -0.3 of lululemon is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of -0.39 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.27).

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.'

• The downside risk / excess return profile over 5 years of lululemon is -0.41, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (1.03) in the same period.
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of -0.53 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.91).

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 Downside risk index over 5 years of lululemon is 34 , which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (8.42 ) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (3.51 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 37 is higher, thus worse.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -68.7 days of lululemon is smaller, thus worse.
• 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 smaller, 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 517 days in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively greater, 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 512 days is larger, thus worse.

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 time in days below previous high water mark of 223 days in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (120 days)
• Compared with SPY (21 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days below previous high of 186 days is greater, thus worse.