NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy

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 26% in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (112.3%)
• Compared with QQQ (110.6%) in the period of the last 3 years, the total return of 4.4% is lower, thus worse.

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.'

• Looking at the annual return (CAGR) of 4.7% in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (16.3%)
• Compared with QQQ (28.3%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of 1.4% is lower, thus worse.

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.'

• The 30 days standard deviation over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is 14%, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark QQQ (23%) in the same period.
• Looking at historical 30 days volatility in of 13.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to QQQ (20.4%).

DownVol:

'Risk measures typically quantify the downside risk, whereas the standard deviation (an example of a deviation risk measure) measures both the upside and downside risk. Specifically, downside risk in our definition is the semi-deviation, that is the standard deviation of all negative returns.'

• The downside risk over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is 9.8%, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark QQQ (15.9%) in the same period.
• Looking at downside deviation in of 9.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to QQQ (13.8%).

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (0.6) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.16 of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is lower, thus worse.
• Compared with QQQ (1.26) in the period of the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of -0.08 is lower, thus worse.

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 (0.87) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.23 of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at downside risk / excess return profile in of -0.11 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to QQQ (1.88).

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 Downside risk index of 6.99 in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (14 )
• Compared with QQQ (4.8 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 6.84 is larger, 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 QQQ (-35.1 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -15.2 days of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is greater, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley is -15.2 days, which is larger, thus better than the value of -22.8 days from the benchmark.

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'

• Looking at the maximum days below previous high of 488 days in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (493 days)
• Looking at maximum days under water in of 488 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to QQQ (113 days).

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 QQQ (125 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 143 days of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is greater, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 175 days, which is larger, thus worse than the value of 30 days from the benchmark.