Aggressive Risk 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 174.6% in the last 5 years of Aggressive Risk Portfolio, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (94.6%)
• Looking at total return in of 34.4% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to SPY (28.1%).

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 annual performance (CAGR) of 22.4% in the last 5 years of Aggressive Risk Portfolio, we see it is relatively larger, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (14.3%)
• During the last 3 years, the annual return (CAGR) is 10.4%, which is greater, thus better than the value of 8.6% 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 15.6% in the last 5 years of Aggressive Risk Portfolio, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (20.9%)
• Looking at historical 30 days volatility in of 14.1% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively smaller, thus better in comparison to SPY (17.4%).

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 SPY (15%) in the period of the last 5 years, the downside risk of 11% of Aggressive Risk Portfolio is smaller, thus better.
• Looking at downside volatility in of 10% in the period of the last 3 years, we see it is relatively lower, thus better in comparison to SPY (12.1%).

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.'

• Looking at the risk / return profile (Sharpe) of 1.28 in the last 5 years of Aggressive Risk Portfolio, we see it is relatively greater, thus better in comparison to the benchmark SPY (0.56)
• Compared with SPY (0.35) in the period of the last 3 years, the Sharpe Ratio of 0.56 is greater, thus better.

Sortino:

'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.'

• The downside risk / excess return profile over 5 years of Aggressive Risk Portfolio is 1.81, which is larger, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (0.78) in the same period.
• During the last 3 years, the excess return divided by the downside deviation is 0.79, which is greater, thus better than the value of 0.5 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 SPY (9.32 ) in the period of the last 5 years, the Ulcer Ratio of 5.52 of Aggressive Risk Portfolio is lower, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (10 ) in the period of the last 3 years, the Downside risk index of 6.26 is lower, thus better.

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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (-33.7 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the maximum reduction from previous high of -20.8 days of Aggressive Risk Portfolio is greater, thus better.
• Compared with SPY (-24.5 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum DrawDown of -19.6 days is larger, thus better.

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 Aggressive Risk Portfolio is 289 days, which is smaller, thus better compared to the benchmark SPY (488 days) in the same period.
• Compared with SPY (488 days) in the period of the last 3 years, the maximum days under water of 289 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.'

• Compared with the benchmark SPY (122 days) in the period of the last 5 years, the average time in days below previous high water mark of 53 days of Aggressive Risk Portfolio is lower, thus better.
• During the last 3 years, the average days below previous high is 74 days, which is lower, thus better than the value of 178 days from the benchmark.