This is the low volatility 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:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (51%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or increase in value of 37% of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is lower, thus worse.
- Looking at total return in of 26.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to GLD (40.5%).

'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:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (8.6%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 6.5% of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is smaller, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) is 8.1%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 12% 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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (13.4%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 7.2% of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is smaller, thus better.
- During the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation is 8.3%, which is smaller, thus better than the value of 15.3% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the downside volatility of 5.2% in the last 5 years of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (9.5%)
- Looking at downside volatility in of 6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to GLD (11%).

'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:- The risk / return profile (Sharpe) over 5 years of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is 0.56, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (0.46) in the same period.
- Compared with GLD (0.62) in the period of the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.68 is larger, thus better.

'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:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (0.64) in the period of the last 5 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation of 0.77 of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is higher, thus better.
- Looking at ratio of annual return and downside deviation in of 0.93 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to GLD (0.86).

'The Ulcer Index is a technical indicator that measures downside risk, in terms of both the depth and duration of price declines. The index increases in value as the price moves farther away from a recent high and falls as the price rises to new highs. The indicator is usually calculated over a 14-day period, with the Ulcer Index showing the percentage drawdown a trader can expect from the high over that period. The greater the value of the Ulcer Index, the longer it takes for a stock to get back to the former high.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (7.93 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 4.15 of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is lower, thus better.
- During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 4.96 , which is smaller, thus better than the value of 8.82 from the benchmark.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- The maximum DrawDown over 5 years of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is -12.9 days, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (-18.8 days) in the same period.
- Compared with GLD (-18.8 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -12.9 days is larger, thus better.

'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:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (370 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 318 days of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is lower, thus better.
- Looking at maximum days under water in of 318 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to GLD (370 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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The average days under water over 5 years of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is 70 days, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (121 days) in the same period.
- Looking at average days under water in of 88 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to GLD (112 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 Low volatility 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.