NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy

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, or performance of 151.9% in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (94.1%)
• During the last 3 years, the total return, or increase in value is 117.4%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 93.7% from the benchmark.

CAGR:

'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.'

• The compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is 20.4%, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark QQQ (14.2%) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 29.6%, which is higher, thus better than the value of 24.7% from the benchmark.

Volatility:

'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.'

• Looking at the historical 30 days volatility of 36.6% in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (23%)
• Looking at volatility in of 38.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to QQQ (20.4%).

DownVol:

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

• The downside volatility over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is 24.8%, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (15.9%) in the same period.
• Compared with QQQ (13.9%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside volatility of 26.2% is higher, thus worse.

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 NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is 0.49, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (0.51) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) is 0.7, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.09 from the benchmark.

Sortino:

'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.'

• The downside risk / excess return profile over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is 0.72, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (0.74) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation is 1.04, which is smaller, thus worse than the value of 1.6 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (14 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 23 of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is greater, thus worse.
• Compared with QQQ (4.85 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Index of 18 is greater, thus worse.

MaxDD:

'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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (-35.1 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -45.1 days of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is smaller, thus worse.
• Compared with QQQ (-22.8 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -35.5 days is lower, thus worse.

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) in days.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (493 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum days below previous high of 507 days of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is larger, thus worse.
• Looking at maximum days under water in of 486 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus worse in comparison to QQQ (113 days).

AveDuration:

'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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (124 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average days under water of 209 days of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is higher, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the average days below previous high is 174 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 30 days from the benchmark.