Mattel (MAT)

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.'

• The total return over 5 years of Mattel is -31.8%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (90%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is -42.5%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 85% from the benchmark.

CAGR:

'The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is a useful measure of growth over multiple time periods. It can be thought of as the growth rate that gets you from the initial investment value to the ending investment value if you assume that the investment has been compounding over the time period.'

• The compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of Mattel is -7.4%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.8%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (22.9%) in the period of the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of -16.9% is lower, thus worse.

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.'

• The 30 days standard deviation over 5 years of Mattel is 37%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17.2%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (15.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 37.9% is higher, thus worse.

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.'

• The downside volatility over 5 years of Mattel is 27%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 28.6%, which is greater, 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.'

• The risk / return profile (Sharpe) over 5 years of Mattel is -0.27, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.66) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (1.33) in the period of the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio of -0.51 is smaller, thus worse.

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 excess return divided by the downside deviation of -0.37 in the last 5 years of Mattel, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.96)
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation is -0.68, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 2 from the benchmark.

Ulcer:

'The ulcer index is a stock market risk measure or technical analysis indicator devised by Peter Martin in 1987, and published by him and Byron McCann in their 1989 book The Investors Guide to Fidelity Funds. It's designed as a measure of volatility, but only volatility in the downward direction, i.e. the amount of drawdown or retracement occurring over a period. Other volatility measures like standard deviation treat up and down movement equally, but a trader doesn't mind upward movement, it's the downside that causes stress and stomach ulcers that the index's name suggests.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Ratio of 30 in the last 5 years of Mattel, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.45 )
• Compared with SPY (3.23 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 21 is higher, thus worse.

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.'

• Looking at the maximum drop from peak to valley of -53.1 days in the last 5 years of Mattel, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days)
• Looking at maximum drop from peak to valley in of -42.9 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-18.8 days).

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 time in days below previous high water mark of 1105 days in the last 5 years of Mattel, 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 569 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.'

• Looking at the average days under water of 498 days in the last 5 years of Mattel, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (119 days)
• Compared with SPY (17 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 238 days is higher, thus worse.