Ulta Beauty (ULTA)

TotalReturn:

'Total return, when measuring performance, is the actual rate of return of an investment or a pool of investments over a given evaluation period. Total return includes interest, capital gains, dividends and distributions realized over a given period of time. Total return accounts for two categories of return: income including interest paid by fixed-income investments, distributions or dividends and capital appreciation, representing the change in the market price of an asset.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (90.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return of 128.6% of Ulta Beauty is larger, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (75.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value of 33.3% is lower, thus worse.

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 Ulta Beauty is 18%, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (13.8%) in the same period.
• Looking at annual return (CAGR) in of 10.1% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (20.7%).

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%) in the period of the last 5 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 33.9% of Ulta Beauty is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (15.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 33.8% is greater, thus worse.

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 (11.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside deviation of 22.8% of Ulta Beauty is larger, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (10.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside volatility of 22.3% 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 (0.67) in the period of the last 5 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.46 of Ulta Beauty is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of 0.22 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.2).

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.'

• The ratio of annual return and downside deviation over 5 years of Ulta Beauty is 0.68, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.97) in the same period.
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of 0.34 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.78).

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 Downside risk index of 18 in the last 5 years of Ulta Beauty, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.42 )
• Compared with SPY (3.49 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 23 is higher, thus worse.

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 Ulta Beauty is -44.6 days, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high is -44.6 days, which is lower, 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). 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 days under water of 434 days of Ulta Beauty is smaller, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark is 434 days, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 87 days from the benchmark.

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.'

• The average time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of Ulta Beauty is 109 days, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (119 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 160 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 20 days from the benchmark.