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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (75.2%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return of 30.3% of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is 19.9%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 78.8% 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.'

• The compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 5.5%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (11.9%) in the same period.
• Looking at compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in of 6.3% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (21.5%).

Volatility:

'Volatility is a rate at which the price of a security increases or decreases for a given set of returns. Volatility is measured by calculating the standard deviation of the annualized returns over a given period of time. It shows the range to which the price of a security may increase or decrease. Volatility measures the risk of a security. It is used in option pricing formula to gauge the fluctuations in the returns of the underlying assets. Volatility indicates the pricing behavior of the security and helps estimate the fluctuations that may happen in a short period of time.'

• Looking at the 30 days standard deviation of 18.5% in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (17.3%)
• During the last 3 years, the volatility is 18.4%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 15.5% from the benchmark.

DownVol:

'Downside risk is the financial risk associated with losses. That is, it is the risk of the actual return being below the expected return, or the uncertainty about the magnitude of that difference. 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 risk over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 13.2%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (12%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 12.9%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 10.4% 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.'

• Looking at the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.16 in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.54)
• During the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) is 0.2, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.23 from the benchmark.

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 (0.79) in the period of the last 5 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.22 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile is 0.29, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.82 from the benchmark.

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 Ulcer Ratio of 9.92 in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.46 )
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index is 10 , which is greater, thus worse than the value of 3.22 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 DrawDown of -23.8 days of Procter & Gamble is greater, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (-18.8 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown of -21.2 days is lower, thus worse.

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'

• Looking at the maximum days under water of 487 days in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (488 days)
• Looking at maximum days under water in of 487 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (87 days).

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.'

• The average days under water over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 183 days, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (117 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (17 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 171 days is larger, thus worse.