Willis Towers Watson (WLTW)

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.'

• Looking at the total return of 96.2% in the last 5 years of Willis Towers Watson, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (82.6%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 59.1%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 77.9% from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (12.9%) in the period of the last 5 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 14.4% of Willis Towers Watson is larger, thus better.
• Looking at annual return (CAGR) in of 16.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (21.3%).

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.'

• The historical 30 days volatility over 5 years of Willis Towers Watson is 25.5%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17.2%) in the same period.
• Looking at volatility in of 29.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to SPY (15.3%).

DownVol:

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

• Looking at the downside volatility of 17.8% in the last 5 years of Willis Towers Watson, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (11.9%)
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 20.7%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 10.3% from the benchmark.

Sharpe:

'The Sharpe ratio is the measure of risk-adjusted return of a financial portfolio. Sharpe ratio is a measure of excess portfolio return over the risk-free rate relative to its standard deviation. Normally, the 90-day Treasury bill rate is taken as the proxy for risk-free rate. A portfolio with a higher Sharpe ratio is considered superior relative to its peers. The measure was named after William F Sharpe, a Nobel laureate and professor of finance, emeritus at Stanford University.'

• The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Willis Towers Watson is 0.47, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.6) in the same period.
• Looking at risk / return profile (Sharpe) in of 0.48 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.23).

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio, a variation of the Sharpe ratio only factors in the downside, or negative volatility, rather than the total volatility used in calculating the Sharpe ratio. The theory behind the Sortino variation is that upside volatility is a plus for the investment, and it, therefore, should not be included in the risk calculation. Therefore, the Sortino ratio takes upside volatility out of the equation and uses only the downside standard deviation in its calculation instead of the total standard deviation that is used in calculating the Sharpe ratio.'

• The excess return divided by the downside deviation over 5 years of Willis Towers Watson is 0.67, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (0.87) in the same period.
• Looking at excess return divided by the downside deviation in of 0.68 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.83).

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 Index over 5 years of Willis Towers Watson is 7.99 , which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (8.46 ) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (3.37 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Downside risk index of 9.23 is greater, thus worse.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -32.9 days of Willis Towers Watson is lower, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown is -32.9 days, which is smaller, 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.'

• The maximum time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of Willis Towers Watson is 252 days, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Looking at maximum time in days below previous high water mark in of 252 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to SPY (87 days).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (118 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days below previous high of 60 days of Willis Towers Watson is smaller, thus better.
• Looking at average days below previous high in of 77 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (18 days).