Leveraged Gold-Currency 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.'

• The total return over 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is 100.4%, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (90.1%) in the same period.
• Looking at total return in of 53.7% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to GLD (67.1%).

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 15% in the last 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (13.7%)
• Compared with GLD (18.7%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of 15.5% is lower, thus worse.

Volatility:

'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.'

• Looking at the historical 30 days volatility of 10.8% in the last 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (15%)
• Looking at volatility in of 11.3% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to GLD (14.8%).

DownVol:

'Downside risk is the financial risk associated with losses. That is, it is the risk of the actual return being below the expected return, or the uncertainty about the magnitude of that difference. 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 Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is 7.5%, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (10.5%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 7.7%, which is smaller, thus better than the value of 9.8% from the benchmark.

Sharpe:

'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.'

• Compared with the benchmark GLD (0.75) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 1.16 of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is larger, thus better.
• Looking at ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) in of 1.15 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to GLD (1.1).

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 GLD (1.07) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 1.66 of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is higher, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation is 1.68, which is larger, thus better than the value of 1.66 from the benchmark.

Ulcer:

'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.'

• Looking at the Downside risk index of 5.92 in the last 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (9.75 )
• Compared with GLD (6.65 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 6.51 is lower, thus better.

MaxDD:

'A maximum drawdown is the maximum loss from a peak to a trough of a portfolio, before a new peak is attained. Maximum Drawdown is an indicator of downside risk over a specified time period. It can be used both as a stand-alone measure or as an input into other metrics such as 'Return over Maximum Drawdown' and the Calmar Ratio. Maximum Drawdown is expressed in percentage terms.'

• The maximum reduction from previous high over 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is -15.2 days, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (-22 days) in the same period.
• Compared with GLD (-18.1 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -15.2 days is larger, thus better.

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 days below previous high over 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is 471 days, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (897 days) in the same period.
• Compared with GLD (233 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 471 days is greater, 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 time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of Leveraged Gold-Currency Strategy is 141 days, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (348 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark is 166 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 62 days from the benchmark.