The NASDAQ 100 leaders is a sub-strategy that uses proprietary risk-adjusted momentum to pick the most appropriate 4 NASDAQ 100 stocks. It is part for the Nasdaq 100 hedged strategy where it is combined with a variable hedge.

The model chooses four individual stocks from the NASDAQ 100 stock index. So depending on what stocks are in the NASDAQ 100, the stock rotation formula might include the new ones.

'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:- Looking at the total return of 299.5% 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 (213.1%)
- During the last 3 years, the total return, or performance is 139.8%, which is larger, thus better than the value of 94.1% from the benchmark.

'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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- The annual performance (CAGR) over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is 31.9%, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark QQQ (25.6%) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) is 33.8%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 24.7% 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.'

Using this definition on our asset we see for example:- Looking at the historical 30 days volatility of 22.6% in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (21.9%)
- Looking at historical 30 days volatility in of 26.5% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus worse in comparison to QQQ (26.2%).

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

Which means for our asset as example:- Looking at the downside risk of 15.5% in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (15.6%)
- Looking at downside deviation in of 18.6% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to QQQ (18.8%).

'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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- The ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is 1.3, which is greater, thus better compared to the benchmark QQQ (1.06) in the same period.
- Compared with QQQ (0.85) in the period of the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 1.18 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.'

Which means for our asset as example:- The ratio of annual return and downside deviation over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is 1.89, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark QQQ (1.48) in the same period.
- During the last 3 years, the ratio of annual return and downside deviation is 1.68, which is greater, thus better than the value of 1.18 from the benchmark.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Compared with the benchmark QQQ (5.49 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Index of 5.52 of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is higher, thus worse.
- During the last 3 years, the Downside risk index is 6.96 , which is greater, thus worse than the value of 6.91 from the benchmark.

'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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the maximum reduction from previous high of -30.7 days in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (-28.6 days)
- During the last 3 years, the maximum reduction from previous high is -30.7 days, which is lower, thus worse than the value of -28.6 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'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- Looking at the maximum days under water of 96 days in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (154 days)
- Looking at maximum days below previous high in of 96 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to QQQ (154 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.'

Applying this definition to our asset in some examples:- The average time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy is 19 days, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark QQQ (26 days) in the same period.
- Compared with QQQ (35 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average days under water of 22 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. To see current trading allocations of NASDAQ 100 Leaders Sub-strategy, register now.

()

- Note that yearly returns do not equal the sum of monthly returns due to compounding.
- Performance results of NASDAQ 100 Leaders 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.