Procter & Gamble (PG)

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, or performance over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 118.1%, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (67.5%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is 31.7%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 39.8% 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 Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (10.9%)
• Looking at annual return (CAGR) in of 9.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (11.8%).

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 21.7% in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (21.4%)
• Compared with SPY (18.7%) in the period of the last 3 years, the volatility of 17.5% is lower, thus better.

DownVol:

'The downside volatility is similar to the volatility, or standard deviation, but only takes losing/negative periods into account.'

• The downside volatility over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 14.8%, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (15.4%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 12.6%, which is smaller, thus better than the value of 13.3% from the benchmark.

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.'

• The ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 0.66, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (0.39) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (0.5) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.41 is lower, thus worse.

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio measures the risk-adjusted return of an investment asset, portfolio, or strategy. It is a modification of the Sharpe ratio but penalizes only those returns falling below a user-specified target or required rate of return, while the Sharpe ratio penalizes both upside and downside volatility equally. Though both ratios measure an investment's risk-adjusted return, they do so in significantly different ways that will frequently lead to differing conclusions as to the true nature of the investment's return-generating efficiency. The Sortino ratio is used as a way to compare the risk-adjusted performance of programs with differing risk and return profiles. In general, risk-adjusted returns seek to normalize the risk across programs and then see which has the higher return unit per risk.'

• Looking at the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.97 in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.54)
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of 0.56 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.7).

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 (9.48 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 6.93 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index is 8.13 , which is smaller, thus better than the value of 10 from the benchmark.

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.'

• The maximum DrawDown over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is -23.8 days, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -23.8 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to SPY (-24.5 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 (358 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days below previous high of 278 days of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark is 278 days, which is lower, thus better than the value of 358 days from the benchmark.

AveDuration:

'The Average 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. 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 (80 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 60 days of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus better.
• Looking at average days under water in of 83 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to SPY (104 days).