Minimum Volatility Portfolio

TotalReturn:

'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.'

• Looking at the total return of 36.2% in the last 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (107.1%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return is 17.3%, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 71.7% from the benchmark.

CAGR:

'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.'

• Looking at the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.4% in the last 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark SPY (15.7%)
• Looking at annual return (CAGR) in of 5.5% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to SPY (19.9%).

Volatility:

'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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (17.6%) in the period of the last 5 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 3.3% of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is smaller, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (17.7%) in the period of the last 3 years, the 30 days standard deviation of 3% is lower, thus better.

DownVol:

'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.'

• Looking at the downside volatility of 2.2% in the last 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (12.2%)
• Compared with SPY (11.6%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside deviation of 2% is lower, thus better.

Sharpe:

'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.'

• The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is 1.19, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (0.75) in the same period.
• Looking at Sharpe Ratio in of 1.01 in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to SPY (0.98).

Sortino:

'The Sortino ratio, a variation of the Sharpe ratio only factors in the downside, or negative volatility, rather than the total volatility used in calculating the Sharpe ratio. The theory behind the Sortino variation is that upside volatility is a plus for the investment, and it, therefore, should not be included in the risk calculation. Therefore, the Sortino ratio takes upside volatility out of the equation and uses only the downside standard deviation in its calculation instead of the total standard deviation that is used in calculating the Sharpe ratio.'

• The ratio of annual return and downside deviation over 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is 1.78, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (1.09) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation is 1.53, which is greater, thus better than the value of 1.5 from the benchmark.

Ulcer:

'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.'

• The Downside risk index over 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is 1 , which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (8.48 ) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (5.32 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Downside risk index of 0.77 is smaller, thus better.

MaxDD:

'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.'

• Looking at the maximum DrawDown of -2.7 days in the last 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (-24.5 days)
• During the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high is -2.4 days, which is greater, thus better than the value of -18.8 days from the benchmark.

MaxDuration:

'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'

• The maximum days under water over 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio is 291 days, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (199 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days below previous high of 96 days is smaller, thus better.

AveDuration:

'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.'

• Looking at the average days under water of 57 days in the last 5 years of Minimum Volatility Portfolio, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (119 days)
• Looking at average days under water in of 30 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to SPY (46 days).