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.'

• The total return, or performance over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 23.3%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (86.4%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the total return is 0.4%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 82.3% from the benchmark.

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 (13.3%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of 4.3% of Procter & Gamble is smaller, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) is 0.1%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 22.3% from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (17.1%) in the period of the last 5 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 17.6% of Procter & Gamble is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility is 17.1%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 15.1% 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside deviation of 12.8% of Procter & Gamble is larger, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (10.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside deviation of 12.5% is greater, thus worse.

Sharpe:

'The Sharpe ratio is the measure of risk-adjusted return of a financial portfolio. Sharpe ratio is a measure of excess portfolio return over the risk-free rate relative to its standard deviation. Normally, the 90-day Treasury bill rate is taken as the proxy for risk-free rate. A portfolio with a higher Sharpe ratio is considered superior relative to its peers. The measure was named after William F Sharpe, a Nobel laureate and professor of finance, emeritus at Stanford University.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.63) in the period of the last 5 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.1 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of -0.14 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.31).

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 (0.92) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.14 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (1.97) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of -0.19 is smaller, thus worse.

Ulcer:

'Ulcer Index is a method for measuring investment risk that addresses the real concerns of investors, unlike the widely used standard deviation of return. UI is a measure of the depth and duration of drawdowns in prices from earlier highs. Using Ulcer Index instead of standard deviation can lead to very different conclusions about investment risk and risk-adjusted return, especially when evaluating strategies that seek to avoid major declines in portfolio value (market timing, dynamic asset allocation, hedge funds, etc.). The Ulcer Index was originally developed in 1987. Since then, it has been widely recognized and adopted by the investment community. According to Nelson Freeburg, editor of Formula Research, Ulcer Index is “perhaps the most fully realized statistical portrait of risk there is.'

• The Downside risk index over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 8.86 , which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (8.45 ) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 8.64 , which is larger, thus worse than the value of 3.5 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 drop from peak to valley over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is -23.8 days, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley is -21.1 days, which is smaller, 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.'

• Looking at the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 439 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)
• Compared with SPY (87 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 355 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.'

• Looking at the average days under water of 140 days in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (119 days)
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 104 days, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 20 days from the benchmark.