NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy

TotalReturn:

'The total return on a portfolio of investments takes into account not only the capital appreciation on the portfolio, but also the income received on the portfolio. The income typically consists of interest, dividends, and securities lending fees. This contrasts with the price return, which takes into account only the capital gain on an investment.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (78.5%) in the period of the last 5 years, the total return, or performance of 29.6% of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is smaller, thus worse.
• During the last 3 years, the total return is 18.8%, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 81.4% 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.'

• Looking at the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.3% in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively lower, thus worse in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (12.3%)
• Looking at annual return (CAGR) in of 5.9% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus worse in comparison to QQQ (22.1%).

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 volatility of 14.1% 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 (23.3%)
• Compared with QQQ (21%) in the period of the last 3 years, the volatility of 14% is lower, thus better.

DownVol:

'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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (16.3%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk of 9.8% of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is lower, thus better.
• Compared with QQQ (14.5%) in the period of the last 3 years, the downside risk 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.'

• The Sharpe Ratio over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is 0.2, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (0.42) in the same period.
• Compared with QQQ (0.94) in the period of the last 3 years, the ratio of return and volatility (Sharpe) of 0.25 is lower, 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 downside risk / excess return profile over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is 0.29, which is lower, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (0.6) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the downside risk / excess return profile is 0.36, which is lower, thus worse than the value of 1.35 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.'

• Looking at the Ulcer Ratio of 7.06 in the last 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to the benchmark QQQ (14 )
• During the last 3 years, the Ulcer Ratio is 6.94 , which is higher, thus worse than the value of 4.96 from the benchmark.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark QQQ (-35.1 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum drop from peak to valley of -15.2 days of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is higher, thus better.
• Looking at maximum reduction from previous high in of -15.2 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to QQQ (-22.8 days).

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 days under water of 516 days of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is larger, thus worse.
• Looking at maximum time in days below previous high water mark in of 516 days in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively higher, thus worse in comparison to QQQ (113 days).

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.'

• The average time in days below previous high water mark over 5 years of NASDAQ 100 Low Volatility Sub-strategy is 152 days, which is higher, thus worse compared to the benchmark QQQ (124 days) in the same period.
• Compared with QQQ (30 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 196 days is higher, thus worse.