NetEase (NTES)

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 over 5 years of NetEase is 63.9%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (90.7%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (85.9%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return of 30.9% 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.'

• The annual performance (CAGR) over 5 years of NetEase is 10.4%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.9%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) is 9.5%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 23.1% from the benchmark.

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.'

• Looking at the historical 30 days volatility of 42.2% in the last 5 years of NetEase, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17.2%)
• During the last 3 years, the volatility is 37.8%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 15.3% 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside volatility of 27.6% of NetEase is greater, thus worse.
• Looking at downside risk in of 25.5% 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 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 ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) over 5 years of NetEase is 0.19, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.66) in the same period.
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of 0.18 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.35).

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 (0.96) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.29 of NetEase is smaller, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (2.02) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.27 is lower, 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 (8.45 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 20 of NetEase is higher, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (3.23 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Downside risk index of 18 is greater, 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.'

• Looking at the maximum DrawDown of -51.4 days in the last 5 years of NetEase, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days)
• During the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown is -34 days, which is lower, thus worse than the value of -18.8 days from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days below previous high of 490 days of NetEase is higher, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (87 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days below previous high of 370 days is greater, 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 184 days in the last 5 years of NetEase, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (118 days)
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 141 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 17 days from the benchmark.