NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy

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 QQQ (173.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return of 217.9% of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is larger, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is 108.7%, which is higher, thus better than the value of 92.7% 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.'

• Looking at the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 26% in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (22.3%)
• During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 27.8%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 24.4% 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 30 days standard deviation of 22.5% in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (21.8%)
• Looking at 30 days standard deviation in of 25.9% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to QQQ (25.5%).

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 NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is 15.8%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (15.6%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk is 18.4%, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 18.3% 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 ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is 1.05, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark QQQ (0.91) in the same period.
• Looking at ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) in of 0.98 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to QQQ (0.86).

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 QQQ (1.27) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 1.49 of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is higher, thus better.
• Compared with QQQ (1.19) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 1.37 is greater, thus better.

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 QQQ (5.89 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 5.85 of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is lower, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 6.72 , which is smaller, thus better than the value of 6.75 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.'

• The maximum reduction from previous high over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is -30.7 days, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (-28.6 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high is -30.7 days, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of -28.6 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (163 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days below previous high of 153 days of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is lower, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum days under water is 96 days, which is lower, thus better than the value of 154 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 QQQ (35 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 25 days of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is lower, thus better.
• Looking at average time in days below previous high water mark in of 19 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to QQQ (33 days).