3M (MMM)

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.'

• The total return, or increase in value over 5 years of 3M is 35.2%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (79.5%) in the same period.
• Looking at total return, or increase in value in of 153.1% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to SPY (92.4%).

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.'

• Looking at the annual performance (CAGR) of 6.2% in the last 5 years of 3M, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (12.5%)
• Compared with SPY (24.5%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 36.6% is greater, thus better.

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 historical 30 days volatility of 28.8% in the last 5 years of 3M, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17.1%)
• Looking at historical 30 days volatility in of 29.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (15.2%).

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 deviation of 18.5% in the last 5 years of 3M, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (11.8%)
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 17.6%, which is greater, 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.58) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.13 of 3M is smaller, thus worse.
• Looking at risk / return profile (Sharpe) in of 1.14 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.45).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.84) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.2 of 3M is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (2.19) in the period of the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 1.93 is lower, thus worse.

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 Downside risk index of 24 in the last 5 years of 3M, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.45 )
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 7.24 , which is larger, thus worse than the value of 3.2 from the benchmark.

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 -48.9 days of 3M is smaller, thus worse.
• Looking at maximum DrawDown in of -18.8 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to SPY (-18.8 days).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 701 days of 3M is higher, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum days under water is 111 days, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 87 days from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (118 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days below previous high of 216 days of 3M is higher, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the average days below previous high is 29 days, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 17 days from the benchmark.