NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy

TotalReturn:

'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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (94.6%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or increase in value of 27% of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is lower, thus worse.
• Looking at total return, or increase in value in of 17.8% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to QQQ (113.7%).

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 annual return (CAGR) over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is 4.9%, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (14.3%) in the same period.
• Compared with QQQ (29%) in the period of the last 3 years, the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.7% is lower, thus worse.

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.'

• The volatility over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is 14.1%, which is lower, thus better compared to the benchmark QQQ (23%) in the same period.
• Compared with QQQ (20.5%) in the period of the last 3 years, the historical 30 days volatility of 13.9% is smaller, thus better.

DownVol:

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

• Looking at the downside deviation of 9.8% in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (15.9%)
• Compared with QQQ (13.8%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside deviation of 9.7% 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (0.51) in the period of the last 5 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.17 of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is smaller, thus worse.
• Compared with QQQ (1.29) in the period of the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.23 is smaller, thus worse.

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 excess return divided by the downside deviation over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is 0.25, which is smaller, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (0.74) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile is 0.33, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.92 from the benchmark.

Ulcer:

'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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (14 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Index of 7.06 of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is smaller, thus better.
• Compared with QQQ (4.81 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 6.93 is higher, thus worse.

MaxDD:

'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.'

• The maximum drop from peak to valley over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is -15.2 days, which is higher, thus better compared to the benchmark QQQ (-35.1 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley is -15.2 days, which is larger, thus better than the value of -22.8 days from the benchmark.

MaxDuration:

'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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (493 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum time in days below previous high water mark of 507 days of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is higher, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the maximum days below previous high is 507 days, which is higher, thus worse than the value of 113 days from the benchmark.

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.'

• The average days under water over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is 149 days, which is greater, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (124 days) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the average days under water is 191 days, which is greater, thus worse than the value of 30 days from the benchmark.