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, or performance of 96.2% in the last 5 years of Willis Towers Watson, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (89.5%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 59.1%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 86.8% from the benchmark.

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 return (CAGR) over 5 years of Willis Towers Watson is 14.4%, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (13.7%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) is 16.7%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 23.3% from the benchmark.

Volatility:

'Volatility is a rate at which the price of a security increases or decreases for a given set of returns. Volatility is measured by calculating the standard deviation of the annualized returns over a given period of time. It shows the range to which the price of a security may increase or decrease. Volatility measures the risk of a security. It is used in option pricing formula to gauge the fluctuations in the returns of the underlying assets. Volatility indicates the pricing behavior of the security and helps estimate the fluctuations that may happen in a short period of time.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (17.2%) in the period of the last 5 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 25.5% of Willis Towers Watson is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (15.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 29.7% is higher, thus worse.

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 higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (11.8%)
• Compared with SPY (10.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside deviation of 20.7% 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 (0.65) in the period of the last 5 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.47 of Willis Towers Watson is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at ratio of return and volatility (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 (1.36).

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.'

• Looking at the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.67 in the last 5 years of Willis Towers Watson, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.95)
• Compared with SPY (2.04) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.68 is lower, thus worse.

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.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Index of 7.99 in the last 5 years of Willis Towers Watson, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.45 )
• During the last 3 years, the Downside risk index is 9.23 , which is higher, thus worse than the value of 3.23 from the benchmark.

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.
• Compared with SPY (-18.8 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -32.9 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'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days below previous high of 252 days of Willis Towers Watson is lower, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (87 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 252 days is larger, thus worse.

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 (119 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 60 days of Willis Towers Watson is smaller, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (17 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days below previous high of 77 days is larger, thus worse.