Procter & Gamble (PG)

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.'

• Looking at the total return, or performance of 76.5% in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (145.1%)
• Looking at total return in of 18.5% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (29.4%).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (19.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 12.1% of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at annual performance (CAGR) in of 5.9% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (9%).

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.'

• The 30 days standard deviation over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 17.4%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17.4%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation is 17.4%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 17% 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.'

• Looking at the downside deviation of 12.4% in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (12%)
• Compared with SPY (12%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside deviation of 12.7% is greater, thus worse.

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 (0.99) in the period of the last 5 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.55 of Procter & Gamble is smaller, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (0.38) in the period of the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.19 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (1.44) in the period of the last 5 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.78 of Procter & Gamble is smaller, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (0.54) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.27 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (8.31 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 6.99 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 8.04 , which is lower, thus better than the value of 8.15 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 -23.8 days of Procter & Gamble is higher, thus better.
• Looking at maximum drop from peak to valley in of -23.8 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-21.3 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'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days under water of 439 days of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum days under water is 439 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 318 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 106 days in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (119 days)
• Compared with SPY (86 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 144 days is greater, thus worse.