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.'

• The total return, or performance over 5 years of lululemon is -50.1%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (75.7%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (65.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or performance of -58% is lower, thus worse.

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 (12%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of -13% of lululemon is smaller, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) is -25.2%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 18.3% from the benchmark.

Volatility:

'Volatility is a rate at which the price of a security increases or decreases for a given set of returns. Volatility is measured by calculating the standard deviation of the annualized returns over a given period of time. It shows the range to which the price of a security may increase or decrease. Volatility measures the risk of a security. It is used in option pricing formula to gauge the fluctuations in the returns of the underlying assets. Volatility indicates the pricing behavior of the security and helps estimate the fluctuations that may happen in a short period of time.'

• Looking at the historical 30 days volatility of 41.4% in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17.1%)
• Compared with SPY (15.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 41.1% is larger, thus worse.

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 30.4% of lululemon is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 31.3%, which is larger, 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 (0.56) in the period of the last 5 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of -0.37 of lululemon is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (1.05) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of -0.68 is lower, thus worse.

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 excess return divided by the downside deviation over 5 years of lululemon is -0.51, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.8) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (1.56) in the period of the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of -0.89 is smaller, thus worse.

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 (8.44 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Index of 37 of lululemon is greater, thus worse.
• Looking at Ulcer Ratio in of 41 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (3.48 ).

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 drop from peak to valley of -71.5 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 -71.5 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) in days.'

• The maximum time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of lululemon is 563 days, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (87 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 563 days is larger, 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.'

• Looking at the average time in days below previous high water mark of 244 days in the last 5 years of lululemon, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (119 days)
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 222 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 20 days from the benchmark.