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 increase in value of 14.9% in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (82.8%)
• Compared with SPY (80.4%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value of 1.2% is lower, thus worse.

CAGR:

'The compound annual growth rate isn't a true return rate, but rather a representational figure. It is essentially a number that describes the rate at which an investment would have grown if it had grown the same rate every year and the profits were reinvested at the end of each year. In reality, this sort of performance is unlikely. However, CAGR can be used to smooth returns so that they may be more easily understood when compared to alternative investments.'

• The annual performance (CAGR) over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 2.8%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (12.9%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) is 0.4%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 21.8% from the benchmark.

Volatility:

'Volatility is a statistical measure of the dispersion of returns for a given security or market index. Volatility can either be measured by using the standard deviation or variance between returns from that same security or market index. Commonly, the higher the volatility, the riskier the security. In the securities markets, volatility is often associated with big swings in either direction. For example, when the stock market rises and falls more than one percent over a sustained period of time, it is called a 'volatile' market.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (17.2%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 18.1% of Procter & Gamble is larger, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (15.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 17.8% is larger, thus worse.

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 volatility of 13.1% of Procter & Gamble is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (10.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside volatility of 12.9% 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.6) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.02 of Procter & Gamble is smaller, thus worse.
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of -0.12 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.26).

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 (0.88) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.03 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile is -0.16, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.89 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.'

• The Ulcer Ratio over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 9.63 , which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (8.45 ) in the same period.
• Looking at Ulcer Ratio in of 9.77 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (3.37 ).

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.'

• Looking at the maximum drop from peak to valley 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 reduction from previous high is -21.1 days, which is lower, thus worse than the value of -18.8 days from the benchmark.

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.'

• 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 days below previous high of 435 days is larger, 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 time in days below previous high water mark of 165 days in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (118 days)
• During the last 3 years, the average days below previous high is 143 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 18 days from the benchmark.