Procter & Gamble (PG)

TotalReturn:

'Total return is the amount of value an investor earns from a security over a specific period, typically one year, when all distributions are reinvested. Total return is expressed as a percentage of the amount invested. For example, a total return of 20% means the security increased by 20% of its original value due to a price increase, distribution of dividends (if a stock), coupons (if a bond) or capital gains (if a fund). Total return is a strong measure of an investment’s overall performance.'

• Looking at the total return, or increase in value of 25.5% in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (85.4%)
• Looking at total return, or performance in of 7.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (75.6%).

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.'

• The annual performance (CAGR) over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 4.7%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.2%) in the same period.
• Looking at annual return (CAGR) in of 2.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (20.8%).

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 (17.2%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 17.9% of Procter & Gamble is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation is 17.5%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 15.3% from the benchmark.

DownVol:

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

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk of 12.9% of Procter & Gamble is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (10.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside deviation of 12.6% is higher, 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.'

• The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 0.12, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.62) in the same period.
• Looking at risk / return profile (Sharpe) in of 0 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.2).

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 (0.9) in the period of the last 5 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.17 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (1.78) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0 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.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Ratio of 9.25 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 Downside risk index is 9.22 , which is higher, thus worse than the value of 3.52 from the benchmark.

MaxDD:

'A maximum drawdown is the maximum loss from a peak to a trough of a portfolio, before a new peak is attained. Maximum Drawdown is an indicator of downside risk over a specified time period. It can be used both as a stand-alone measure or as an input into other metrics such as 'Return over Maximum Drawdown' and the Calmar Ratio. Maximum Drawdown is expressed in percentage terms.'

• Looking at the maximum reduction from previous high 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)
• Looking at maximum DrawDown in of -21.1 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-18.8 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 time in days below previous high water mark of 439 days of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (87 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 392 days is greater, thus worse.

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 (119 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 152 days of Procter & Gamble is higher, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 122 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 20 days from the benchmark.