This is the aggressive sub-strategy of the leveraged GLD-USD strategy.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The total return, or performance over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 65.9%, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark GLD (66.1%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 3.3%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 34.8% 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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the annual performance (CAGR) of 10.7% in the last 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (10.7%)
- During the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) is 1.1%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 10.4% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the 30 days standard deviation of 14% in the last 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark GLD (14%)
- Looking at volatility in of 14% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to GLD (14.5%).

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- The downside volatility over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 9.5%, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (9.7%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the downside risk is 10%, which is lower, thus better than the value of 10.3% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (0.58) in the period of the last 5 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.58 of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is larger, thus better.
- Looking at ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) in of -0.1 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to GLD (0.55).

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 0.86 in the last 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (0.84)
- Compared with GLD (0.77) in the period of the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of -0.14 is smaller, thus worse.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The Downside risk index over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 7.47 , which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark GLD (7.11 ) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the Downside risk index is 9.26 , which is greater, thus worse than the value of 6.2 from the benchmark.

'Maximum drawdown measures the loss in any losing period during a fund’s investment record. It is defined as the percent retrenchment from a fund’s peak value to the fund’s valley value. The drawdown is in effect from the time the fund’s retrenchment begins until a new fund high is reached. The maximum drawdown encompasses both the period from the fund’s peak to the fund’s valley (length), and the time from the fund’s valley to a new fund high (recovery). It measures the largest percentage drawdown that has occurred in any fund’s data record.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The maximum drop from peak to valley over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is -18.9 days, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark GLD (-17.8 days) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley is -18.9 days, which is lower, thus worse than the value of -14 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'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 551 days in the last 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (741 days)
- Compared with GLD (352 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 551 days is higher, thus worse.

'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:- Looking at the average days below previous high of 141 days in the last 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (245 days)
- Looking at average days below previous high in of 212 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to GLD (105 days).

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

Allocations and holdings shown below are delayed by one month. To see current trading allocations of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy, register now.

()

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