Willis Towers Watson (WLTW)

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 over 5 years of Willis Towers Watson is 96.2%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (101.9%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (33.5%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value of 59.1% is higher, thus better.

CAGR:

'Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is a business and investing specific term for the geometric progression ratio that provides a constant rate of return over the time period. CAGR is not an accounting term, but it is often used to describe some element of the business, for example revenue, units delivered, registered users, etc. CAGR dampens the effect of volatility of periodic returns that can render arithmetic means irrelevant. It is particularly useful to compare growth rates from various data sets of common domain such as revenue growth of companies in the same industry.'

• Looking at the annual performance (CAGR) of 14.4% in the last 5 years of Willis Towers Watson, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (15.1%)
• During the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) is 16.7%, which is higher, thus better than the value of 10.1% 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.'

• Looking at the volatility of 25.5% in the last 5 years of Willis Towers Watson, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (21%)
• Looking at 30 days standard deviation in of 29.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (17.5%).

DownVol:

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

• The downside risk over 5 years of Willis Towers Watson is 17.8%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (15%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 20.7%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 12.3% from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.6) in the period of the last 5 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.47 of Willis Towers Watson is smaller, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) is 0.48, which is higher, thus better than the value of 0.44 from the benchmark.

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 (0.84) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.67 of Willis Towers Watson is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (0.62) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.68 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (9.32 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 7.99 of Willis Towers Watson is lower, thus better.
• Looking at Ulcer Ratio in of 9.23 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -32.9 days of Willis Towers Watson is larger, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high is -32.9 days, which is smaller, thus worse 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). 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'

• Looking at the maximum days below previous high of 252 days in the last 5 years of Willis Towers Watson, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (488 days)
• Compared with SPY (488 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 252 days is smaller, thus better.

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 days below previous high over 5 years of Willis Towers Watson is 60 days, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (122 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (177 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 77 days is smaller, thus better.