The Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy takes advantage of the historically negative correlation between gold and the U.S. dollar. It switches between the two assets based on their recent risk adjusted performance enabling the strategy to provide protection against severe gold corrections due to dollar strength. It is an excellent addition to existing equity or bond portfolios as it holds very little correlation to either.

This version of the strategy uses inverse leveraged ETFs to generate higher returns, but some retirement accounts are restricted from trading these ETFs. GLD-UUP provides an alternate form of the strategy without leveraged ETFs which also lowers the overall return and volatility.

'Total return, when measuring performance, is the actual rate of return of an investment or a pool of investments over a given evaluation period. Total return includes interest, capital gains, dividends and distributions realized over a given period of time. Total return accounts for two categories of return: income including interest paid by fixed-income investments, distributions or dividends and capital appreciation, representing the change in the market price of an asset.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The total return over 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is 86.1%, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (69.5%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the total return is 37%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 30.6% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The annual performance (CAGR) over 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is 13.2%, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (11.1%) in the same period.
- Looking at compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) in of 11.1% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to GLD (9.3%).

'In finance, volatility (symbol σ) is the degree of variation of a trading price series over time as measured by the standard deviation of logarithmic returns. Historic volatility measures a time series of past market prices. Implied volatility looks forward in time, being derived from the market price of a market-traded derivative (in particular, an option). Commonly, the higher the volatility, the riskier the security.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (15.3%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 11.2% of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is lower, thus better.
- Compared with GLD (14%) in the period of the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 10.8% is lower, thus better.

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

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the downside deviation of 7.7% in the last 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (10.8%)
- During the last 3 years, the downside risk is 7.6%, which is smaller, thus better than the value of 9.6% from the benchmark.

'The Sharpe ratio (also known as the Sharpe index, the Sharpe measure, and the reward-to-variability ratio) is a way to examine the performance of an investment by adjusting for its risk. The ratio measures the excess return (or risk premium) per unit of deviation in an investment asset or a trading strategy, typically referred to as risk, named after William F. Sharpe.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The risk / return profile (Sharpe) over 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is 0.96, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (0.56) in the same period.
- Compared with GLD (0.49) in the period of the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.79 is greater, thus better.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 1.39 in the last 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (0.8)
- Compared with GLD (0.71) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 1.13 is higher, thus better.

'Ulcer Index is a method for measuring investment risk that addresses the real concerns of investors, unlike the widely used standard deviation of return. UI is a measure of the depth and duration of drawdowns in prices from earlier highs. Using Ulcer Index instead of standard deviation can lead to very different conclusions about investment risk and risk-adjusted return, especially when evaluating strategies that seek to avoid major declines in portfolio value (market timing, dynamic asset allocation, hedge funds, etc.). The Ulcer Index was originally developed in 1987. Since then, it has been widely recognized and adopted by the investment community. According to Nelson Freeburg, editor of Formula Research, Ulcer Index is “perhaps the most fully realized statistical portrait of risk there is.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (9.78 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Downside risk index of 5.95 of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is smaller, thus better.
- Looking at Downside risk index in of 6.47 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to GLD (8.26 ).

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the maximum reduction from previous high of -15.2 days in the last 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (-22 days)
- During the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high is -15.2 days, which is greater, thus better than the value of -21 days from the benchmark.

'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'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (897 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days under water of 416 days of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is smaller, thus better.
- Looking at maximum days below previous high in of 416 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to GLD (436 days).

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (346 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 121 days of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is smaller, thus better.
- Compared with GLD (143 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days below previous high of 133 days is lower, thus better.

Historical returns have been extended using synthetic data.
[Show Details]

Allocations and holdings shown below are delayed by one month.

Register now to get the current trading allocations.

- Note that yearly returns do not equal the sum of monthly returns due to compounding.
- Performance results of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy are hypothetical and do not account for slippage, fees or taxes.
- Results may be based on backtesting, which has many inherent limitations, some of which are described in our Terms of Use.