Exxon Mobil (XOM)

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (87%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or increase in value of 218% of Exxon Mobil is larger, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 57.8%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 78.1% 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.'

• The compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of Exxon Mobil is 26.1%, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (13.4%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (21.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 16.5% is lower, thus worse.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (17.2%) in the period of the last 5 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 26.6% of Exxon Mobil is greater, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the volatility is 23.3%, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 15.4% from the benchmark.

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 (11.8%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside deviation of 18.4% of Exxon Mobil is larger, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the downside deviation is 16.4%, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 10.3% from the benchmark.

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.'

• The ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) over 5 years of Exxon Mobil is 0.89, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (0.63) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) is 0.6, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 1.22 from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.92) in the period of the last 5 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 1.29 of Exxon Mobil is larger, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile is 0.85, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.82 from the benchmark.

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 Ratio of 8.75 in the last 5 years of Exxon Mobil, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (8.45 )
• Compared with SPY (3.38 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 9.4 is greater, 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley of -20.5 days of Exxon Mobil is larger, thus better.
• Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -20.1 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (-18.8 days).

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.'

• Looking at the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 306 days in the last 5 years of Exxon Mobil, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (488 days)
• During the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark is 306 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (119 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 69 days of Exxon Mobil is lower, thus better.
• Looking at average days below previous high in of 95 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to SPY (18 days).