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

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- The total return over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 103.1%, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (77.1%) in the same period.
- Looking at total return, or increase in value in of 39.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to GLD (50.7%).

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 15.2%, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (12.1%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) is 11.7%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 14.7% from the benchmark.

'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.'

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 18.1% of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is higher, thus worse.
- Compared with GLD (14.2%) in the period of the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 18.5% is larger, thus worse.

'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:- The downside volatility over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 12.8%, which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark GLD (10.7%) in the same period.
- Looking at downside risk in of 13.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to GLD (9.5%).

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 0.71, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (0.63) in the same period.
- Compared with GLD (0.86) in the period of the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.5 is smaller, thus worse.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The ratio of annual return and downside deviation over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 1, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (0.9) in the same period.
- Looking at ratio of annual return and downside deviation in of 0.68 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to GLD (1.28).

'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 Ulcer Ratio over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 15 , which is larger, thus worse compared to the benchmark GLD (9.74 ) in the same period.
- Looking at Downside risk index in of 18 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to GLD (8.23 ).

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (-22 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -34.4 days of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is smaller, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley is -34.4 days, which is lower, thus worse 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'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (897 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days under water of 511 days of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is lower, thus better.
- Looking at maximum days below previous high in of 511 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to GLD (436 days).

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the average time in days below previous high water mark of 181 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 (346 days)
- Looking at average time in days below previous high water mark in of 189 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to GLD (143 days).

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 Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-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.