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 of 68% in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (86.7%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is 24.3%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 25.1% from the benchmark.

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 compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 10.9%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (13.3%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) is 7.5%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 7.8% 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 (20.9%) in the period of the last 5 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 21.1% of Procter & Gamble is higher, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (17.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 17.1% is lower, thus better.

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.'

• The downside volatility over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 14.7%, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (15%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 12.2%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 12.1% 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 0.4 in the last 5 years of Procter & Gamble, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.52)
• Looking at risk / return profile (Sharpe) in of 0.29 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (0.3).

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio improves upon the Sharpe ratio by isolating downside volatility from total volatility by dividing excess return by the downside deviation. The Sortino ratio is a variation of the Sharpe ratio that differentiates harmful volatility from total overall volatility by using the asset's standard deviation of negative asset returns, called downside deviation. The Sortino ratio takes the asset's return and subtracts the risk-free rate, and then divides that amount by the asset's downside deviation. The ratio was named after Frank A. Sortino.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.72) in the period of the last 5 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.57 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation is 0.41, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 0.43 from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (9.33 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Index of 7.13 of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus better.
• Looking at Ulcer Index in of 7.86 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to SPY (10 ).

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 larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days)
• During the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown is -23.8 days, which is larger, thus better than the value of -24.5 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.'

• The maximum days under water over 5 years of Procter & Gamble is 439 days, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum days below previous high in of 439 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to SPY (488 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (123 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 106 days of Procter & Gamble is lower, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (178 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 142 days is lower, thus better.