QUALCOMM (QCOM)

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (66.6%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or increase in value of 72.1% of QUALCOMM is higher, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (36.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or performance of 81.6% is greater, thus better.

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.'

• Looking at the annual performance (CAGR) of 11.5% in the last 5 years of QUALCOMM, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (10.8%)
• Compared with SPY (10.8%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 22% is larger, thus better.

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.'

• Looking at the historical 30 days volatility of 36.1% in the last 5 years of QUALCOMM, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (19%)
• During the last 3 years, the volatility is 39.6%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 22% from the benchmark.

DownVol:

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

• Looking at the downside deviation of 24.9% in the last 5 years of QUALCOMM, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (13.9%)
• Looking at downside risk in of 25.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (16.2%).

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.'

• Looking at the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.25 in the last 5 years of QUALCOMM, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.43)
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of 0.49 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to SPY (0.38).

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.'

• The excess return divided by the downside deviation over 5 years of QUALCOMM is 0.36, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.59) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (0.52) in the period of the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.76 is greater, thus better.

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.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Index of 17 in the last 5 years of QUALCOMM, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (5.9 )
• During the last 3 years, the Downside risk index is 16 , which is larger, thus worse than the value of 6.98 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -36 days of QUALCOMM is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -36 days is lower, thus worse.

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'

• The maximum time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of QUALCOMM is 272 days, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (187 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum days under water in of 151 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (139 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 below previous high over 5 years of QUALCOMM is 92 days, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (44 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 58 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 41 days from the benchmark.