NetApp (NTAP)

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 (101.9%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or performance of 118% of NetApp is greater, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the total return is 41.4%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 33.5% 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.'

• Looking at the annual return (CAGR) of 16.9% in the last 5 years of NetApp, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (15.1%)
• Looking at compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in of 12.3% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to SPY (10.1%).

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.'

• The volatility over 5 years of NetApp is 36.1%, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (21%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility is 31.1%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 17.5% from the benchmark.

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 deviation over 5 years of NetApp is 24.4%, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (15%) in the same period.
• Looking at downside deviation in of 20.1% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (12.3%).

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.'

• Looking at the Sharpe Ratio of 0.4 in the last 5 years of NetApp, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.6)
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of 0.31 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.44).

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 NetApp is 0.59, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.84) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (0.62) in the period of the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.49 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.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Index of 20 in the last 5 years of NetApp, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (9.32 )
• Compared with SPY (10 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Downside risk index of 19 is greater, 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 -45.9 days in the last 5 years of NetApp, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days)
• Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -37.7 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-24.5 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'

• The maximum days below previous high over 5 years of NetApp is 471 days, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark is 471 days, which is smaller, thus better than the value of 488 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.'

• Looking at the average days below previous high of 127 days in the last 5 years of NetApp, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (122 days)
• Compared with SPY (177 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days below previous high of 166 days is lower, thus better.