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.'

• The total return over 5 years of Exxon Mobil is 247.3%, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (74.4%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (69.4%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return, or performance of 77% is higher, thus better.

CAGR:

'The compound annual growth rate isn't a true return rate, but rather a representational figure. It is essentially a number that describes the rate at which an investment would have grown if it had grown the same rate every year and the profits were reinvested at the end of each year. In reality, this sort of performance is unlikely. However, CAGR can be used to smooth returns so that they may be more easily understood when compared to alternative investments.'

• Looking at the annual performance (CAGR) of 28.4% in the last 5 years of Exxon Mobil, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (11.8%)
• During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 21%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 19.3% 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.'

• The volatility over 5 years of Exxon Mobil is 26.5%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (17%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (15%) in the period of the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 22.5% is higher, thus worse.

DownVol:

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

• The downside deviation over 5 years of Exxon Mobil is 18.1%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark SPY (11.8%) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (10.1%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside deviation of 15.6% 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.'

• Looking at the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.98 in the last 5 years of Exxon Mobil, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.55)
• Compared with SPY (1.12) in the period of the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.82 is smaller, thus worse.

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio measures the risk-adjusted return of an investment asset, portfolio, or strategy. It is a modification of the Sharpe ratio but penalizes only those returns falling below a user-specified target or required rate of return, while the Sharpe ratio penalizes both upside and downside volatility equally. Though both ratios measure an investment's risk-adjusted return, they do so in significantly different ways that will frequently lead to differing conclusions as to the true nature of the investment's return-generating efficiency. The Sortino ratio is used as a way to compare the risk-adjusted performance of programs with differing risk and return profiles. In general, risk-adjusted returns seek to normalize the risk across programs and then see which has the higher return unit per risk.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (0.79) in the period of the last 5 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 1.43 of Exxon Mobil is greater, thus better.
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of 1.19 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to SPY (1.66).

Ulcer:

'The Ulcer Index is a technical indicator that measures downside risk, in terms of both the depth and duration of price declines. The index increases in value as the price moves farther away from a recent high and falls as the price rises to new highs. The indicator is usually calculated over a 14-day period, with the Ulcer Index showing the percentage drawdown a trader can expect from the high over that period. The greater the value of the Ulcer Index, the longer it takes for a stock to get back to the former high.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (8.43 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Index of 8.44 of Exxon Mobil is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with SPY (3.44 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 8.86 is higher, 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.'

• Looking at the maximum drop from peak to valley of -20.5 days in the last 5 years of Exxon Mobil, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days)
• Looking at maximum DrawDown in of -18.9 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 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'

• The maximum time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of Exxon Mobil is 306 days, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (87 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 306 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.'

• The average days below previous high over 5 years of Exxon Mobil is 68 days, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (119 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 95 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 20 days from the benchmark.