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

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The total return over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 123.3%, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (47.6%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 42.9%, which is larger, thus better than the value of 11.7% 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:- The annual performance (CAGR) over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 17.5%, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (8.1%) in the same period.
- Compared with GLD (3.8%) in the period of the last 3 years, the annual performance (CAGR) of 12.6% is higher, thus better.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the volatility of 17.9% in the last 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark GLD (14.7%)
- Looking at volatility in of 18.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to GLD (15.2%).

'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:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (10.4%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside volatility of 12.5% of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is higher, thus worse.
- Looking at downside deviation in of 13.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to GLD (11.1%).

'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:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (0.38) in the period of the last 5 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.83 of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is larger, thus better.
- Looking at risk / return profile (Sharpe) in of 0.55 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to GLD (0.08).

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (0.54) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 1.2 of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is higher, thus better.
- Looking at excess return divided by the downside deviation in of 0.74 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to GLD (0.12).

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The Ulcer Ratio over 5 years of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is 8.87 , which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (9.72 ) in the same period.
- Looking at Ulcer Ratio in of 11 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to GLD (12 ).

'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.'

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 drop from peak to valley of -24.9 days of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is lower, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley is -24.9 days, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of -22 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:- Looking at the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 396 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 (707 days)
- During the last 3 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark is 396 days, which is lower, thus better than the value of 707 days from the benchmark.

'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 (227 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days below previous high of 97 days of Gold-USD Aggressive Sub-strategy is lower, thus better.
- Compared with GLD (343 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark 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 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.