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 17.6% in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (91.8%)
• Looking at total return, or increase in value in of 6.3% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (85.7%).

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 (14%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 3.3% of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (23.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 2.1% is lower, thus worse.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (17.1%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 17.6% of Procter & Gamble is higher, thus worse.
• Looking at volatility in of 17.1% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (15.1%).

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 12.8%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (11.7%) in the same period.
• Looking at downside volatility in of 12.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (10.1%).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.67) in the period of the last 5 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.05 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (1.36) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of -0.02 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.98) in the period of the last 5 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.06 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at excess return divided by the downside deviation in of -0.03 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (2.05).

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 Index of 9.04 in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.45 )
• Looking at Ulcer Index in of 8.85 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (3.5 ).

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 -23.8 days in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days)
• During the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley is -21.1 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 time in days below previous high water mark of 439 days of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus better.
• Looking at maximum time in days below previous high water mark in of 369 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, 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 144 days, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (120 days) in the same period.
• Looking at average days below previous high in of 111 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (20 days).