This is the low volatility 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:- Looking at the total return of 33.9% in the last 5 years of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark GLD (51.9%)
- During the last 3 years, the total return is 27.5%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 46% from the benchmark.

'Compound annual growth rate (CAGR) is a business and investing specific term for the geometric progression ratio that provides a constant rate of return over the time period. CAGR is not an accounting term, but it is often used to describe some element of the business, for example revenue, units delivered, registered users, etc. CAGR dampens the effect of volatility of periodic returns that can render arithmetic means irrelevant. It is particularly useful to compare growth rates from various data sets of common domain such as revenue growth of companies in the same industry.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (8.7%) in the period of the last 5 years, the annual return (CAGR) of 6% of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is lower, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) is 8.4%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 13.5% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the volatility of 7.9% in the last 5 years of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (13.4%)
- During the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation is 7.1%, which is lower, thus better than the value of 12.8% from the benchmark.

'The downside volatility is similar to the volatility, or standard deviation, but only takes losing/negative periods into account.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The downside deviation over 5 years of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is 5.3%, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark GLD (9%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the downside volatility is 5%, which is lower, thus better than the value of 8.6% 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:- The risk / return profile (Sharpe) over 5 years of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is 0.44, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark GLD (0.46) in the same period.
- Compared with GLD (0.86) in the period of the last 3 years, the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 0.83 is lower, 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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (0.69) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk / excess return profile of 0.66 of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is lower, thus worse.
- Compared with GLD (1.27) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation of 1.18 is lower, 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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the Ulcer Index of 3.07 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 (7 )
- Compared with GLD (5.55 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 2.51 is smaller, thus better.

'Maximum drawdown is defined as the peak-to-trough decline of an investment during a specific period. It is usually quoted as a percentage of the peak value. The maximum drawdown can be calculated based on absolute returns, in order to identify strategies that suffer less during market downturns, such as low-volatility strategies. However, the maximum drawdown can also be calculated based on returns relative to a benchmark index, for identifying strategies that show steady outperformance over time.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (-17.8 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum DrawDown of -11.7 days of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is higher, thus better.
- Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -8.4 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus better in comparison to GLD (-13.8 days).

'The Maximum 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. It is the length of time the account was in the Max Drawdown. A Max Drawdown measures a retrenchment from when an equity curve reaches a new high. It’s the maximum an account lost during that retrenchment. This method is applied because a valley can’t be measured until a new high occurs. Once the new high is reached, the percentage change from the old high to the bottom of the largest trough is recorded.'

Which means for our asset as example:- Compared with the benchmark GLD (741 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 282 days of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy is lower, thus better.
- Looking at maximum time in days below previous high water mark in of 131 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to GLD (352 days).

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the average time in days below previous high water mark of 62 days in the last 5 years of Gold-USD Low volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark GLD (239 days)
- Looking at average days below previous high in of 36 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to GLD (103 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 Low volatility Sub-strategy, register now.

()

- 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.