?

Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

Introduction
Morningstar Analytics
A sizable literature exists identifying various “factors” that are believed to drive investment risk and
April 30, 2025
Version 1.1
return. Morningstar Style Box was an early adopter of factor identification, characterizing fund
performance along two dimensions: size and value growth. It has since become an invaluable tool for
Contents many investors in understanding fund and stock performance.
1 Introduction
2 Factor Definition
5 Factor Profile Methodology In recent years, additional factors have been proposed by academics and practitioners, driving a
6 Application of Factor Profile significant increase in factor-based investment strategies. Today, portfolios that target or tilt toward
10 References particular investment factors are widely offered by fund managers in both active and index products.
12 Appendix A: Contributors and Version
More important, investors have learned that the returns of most portfolios can be largely explained by a
History
certain combination of those distinct factors.

To help investors better analyze managed funds along the increasing number of factor dimensions, we
introduce the Morningstar Factor Profile, a scientific and intuitive tool to capture the factor exposures of
investment portfolios.

Morningstar Factor Profile includes seven factors that are widely accepted in the industry as reliable
descriptions of the underlying drivers of market performance: size, style (or value growth), quality, yield,
liquidity, volatility, and momentum. The seven factors selected intend to strike a balance between the
coverage of the most important factors and a reasonable level of complexity for investors.

Morningstar Factor Profile uses a bottom-up, holdings-based approach whereby a fund’s factor exposure
is based on the characteristics of the underlying securities. Morningstar first calculates a standardized
score of stocks’ factor characteristics, such as liquidity, value, and quality, within an asset class and
region. This geographic framework ensures that stocks are compared with local peers and that factor
characterizations are relevant to local investors. Stock-level factor scores are then aggregated to the
fund level using portfolio holding weights. Lastly, fund-level factor scores are ranked and transformed to
a scale between 1 and 100. As shown in Exhibit 1, the dark-blue dot for each factor represents the
position of a fund’s ranking among all funds in the global universe.

In addition, Factor Profile also displays the average ranking of the funds in each Morningstar Category,
shown as the black-dot marker in Exhibit 1. This helps investors establish a relevant benchmark to
evaluate a fund’s positioning. Further, the light-blue shaded area in Exhibit 1 shows the range (minimum
Page 2 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

and maximum) of the fund’s ranking over the past five years, which enables investors to assess the
stability of a fund’s factor exposures.

Exhibit 1 Factor Profile Visual

Style Yield Momentum Quality Volatility Liquidity Size

Growth High High High High High Large Sample Fund

5 Yr Historic Range
Category Average

Value Low Low Low Low Low Small

Source: Morningstar Direct.

Leveraging Morningstar’s unparalleled portfolio data, Factor Profile enables investors to rank and
compare the factor exposure of a portfolio relative to the largest universe of funds. This includes newly
created funds as Factor Profile is a holdings-based analysis. By contrast, the returns-based analysis
provided by other vendors cannot be applied to funds with short periods of return history.

Factor Definition
In this section, we describe the definition of the seven factors included in Morningstar Factor Profile.
These factors are widely studied and accepted among investors and are often the most popular
strategies employed in factor investment and strategic-beta products.

Size
We use the raw size score from Morningstar Style Box as the input for calculating the size exposure of a
stock. This ensures that the size ranking of Factor Profile is consistent with that of the Morningstar Style
Box. The raw size score is calculated based on the natural logarithm of the market capitalization with a
ranking and scaling scheme to ensure that each mid-cap stock has a raw score between 100 and 200.
Small stocks have a score below 100 and large stocks above 200, according to the following formula:

𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐) − 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐1 )

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 100 × �1 + �
𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 ) − 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙(𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐1 )
Page 3 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

where 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐1 is the market capitalization that corresponds to the breakpoint between mid-cap and small-
cap stocks for the stock’s respective style zone, and 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 is the market capitalization that corresponds
to the breakpoint between large-cap and mid-cap stocks for the stock’s respective style zone. For more
details, refer to the Morningstar Style Box Methodology listed in the References section.

Next, to be consistent with the well-documented small size premium (Banz, 1981; Fama and French,
1993), we apply a negative transformation to the raw size score such that small-cap companies have
high size scores:

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = −𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆.

The interpretation of this high size score is that small stocks will have high exposures to the size
premium.

Style
Similarly, to be consistent with the ranking from the Morningstar Style Box, we use the raw style score
from the Style Box as the input for calculating the value-growth exposure of stocks. The raw style score
is calculated as the difference between a stock’s growth score and value score:

𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = 𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺ℎ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 − 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆

The value score is the weighted average of a stock’s prospective earnings (E), book value (BV), revenue
(R), cash flow (CF), and dividend (D), all scaled by the current price of the stock:

𝐸𝐸 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑅𝑅 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐷𝐷
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = �𝑤𝑤𝐸𝐸 × + 𝑤𝑤𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × + 𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑅 × + 𝑤𝑤𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × + 𝑤𝑤𝐷𝐷 × �
𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡 𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡 𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡 𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡 𝑃𝑃𝑡𝑡

The growth score of a stock is the weighted average of the growth rates in a company’s earnings (E),
book value (BV), revenue (R), and cash flow (CF):

𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺𝐺ℎ 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 = �𝑤𝑤𝐸𝐸 × 𝐸𝐸𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔ℎ + 𝑤𝑤𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 × 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔ℎ + 𝑤𝑤𝑅𝑅 × 𝑅𝑅𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔ℎ + 𝑤𝑤𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 × 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔ℎ �

In this setting, a higher style score indicates a stronger growth orientation of a stock and a lower
exposure to the value premium. For more details, refer to the Morningstar Style Box Methodology listed
in the References section.
Page 4 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

Momentum
It has been well documented that there is a momentum effect in stock markets, where stocks that have
performed well recently tend to outperform in the future (Jegadeesh and Titman, 1993; Carhart, 1997).
We calculate the momentum factor exposure as the log trailing 12-month return minus trailing one-
month return. Higher values indicate larger, positive momentum exposure:

𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = ln(1 + 𝑟𝑟12 ) − ln(1 + 𝑟𝑟1 )

where 𝑟𝑟12 and 𝑟𝑟1 are trailing 12-month and one-month returns, respectively.

Liquidity
It has been shown both theoretically and empirically that the liquidity of stocks affects their expected
returns (Amihud and Mendelson, 1986; Amihud and Mendelson, 1989; Amihud, 2002). Effectively, there
exists an illiquidity premium to compensate investors for holding illiquid assets. In Factor Profile, we
define the liquidity score of a stock as its average daily trading volume scaled by the number of shares
outstanding over a month, assuming 21 trading days:

0
1 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑡𝑡
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 = �
21 𝑆𝑆ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑡
𝑡𝑡=−20

Quality
Research has also shown that stocks of high quality tend to outperform those of low quality (Sloan,
1996; Asness, Frazzini, and Pedersen, 2019). We define a quality score of a stock as the equally
weighted z-score of a company’s profitability (trailing 12-month return on equity) and the z-score of its
financial leverage (trailing 12-month debt/capital). The z-score is with respect to all the stocks in the
global universe. Higher values indicate higher quality:

1 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝑡𝑡
𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄𝑄 = �𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑧𝑧 + �1 − � �
2 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 𝑧𝑧
where 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 is the trailing 12-month return on equity and the subscript z indicates a z-score.

Yield
Stock yield is another important consideration for many investors, and it has been shown that the level
of dividend yield is associated with expected stock returns (Blume, 1980). Factor Profile includes a total
yield factor for stocks, which is the sum of the trailing 12-month buyback and dividend yield of a
company. Higher values indicate larger, positive yield exposure:

𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌 = 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 + 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡

Volatility
The volatility of stock returns is a widely used measure of risk. Although theoretically stocks with higher
risk should earn higher expected return, some research has shown that stocks with low volatility
Page 5 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

outperform stocks with high volatility (Ang, Hodrick, Xing, and Zhang, 2006). As low- and minimum-
volatility investment strategies have become more popular in recent years, we include a volatility score
in Factor Profile. The volatility score is defined as the trailing 12-month volatility of daily returns of a
stock, where higher values indicate higher volatility.

2
∑𝑁𝑁
𝑡𝑡=1(𝑟𝑟𝑡𝑡 − 𝑟𝑟
�)
𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 = �
𝑡𝑡
𝑁𝑁 − 1

where 𝑟𝑟𝑡𝑡 is the stock return at time t and 𝑟𝑟�𝑡𝑡 is the average return over N days.

Factor Profile Methodology

Morningstar Factor Profile applies a holdings-based analysis. It starts with calculating the factor scores
for the stocks in our database each day and then produces the holdings-weighted scores for funds and
portfolios. Next, the relevant funds’ factor scores are transformed into a percentile ranking from 1 to
100. Lastly, a set of procedures is applied to transform the factor scores of individual stocks so that they
are comparable with the funds’ scores. The following section describes these steps in detail.

Factor scores for stocks and funds

Each day, we first produce the factor scores as defined in the previous section for all stocks in
Morningstar's database. The following procedures are then performed for each of the raw factor scores.

1. Factor score winsorization: The factor scores are winsorized at both the lower and upper ends to
reduce the impact of extreme values. The specific thresholds are empirically tested and established
separately for each factor score.
2. Factor score standardization: The winsorized factor scores are then standardized so that the market-
capitalization-weighted average value is zero and the standard deviation is one. This is to make sure
that the factor scores are of the same scale and comparable. Note, this standardization process is
applied within each of the seven regions: developed North America, developed Europe, developed
Asia-Pacific, emerging Latin America, emerging Europe, emerging Asia-Pacific, and emerging Middle
East and Africa. This ensures that stocks are compared with their closest peers within a region, as
companies from different regions may not be comparable in many aspects. For example, a large-cap
company in a developing market may be considered as only a mid-cap stock in a developed market.
3. The stock-level standardized factor scores are then aggregated to the fund level using a fund’s
holdings weights, based on the latest holdings of a fund in the Morningstar database.

Factor percentile ranking for funds

To make sure users of Factor Profile have intuitive measures, the standardized factor scores of funds are
transformed to a percentile ranking between 1 and 100 with the following steps:

1. Select the coverage of funds. To accurately measure factor exposures, sufficient coverage of a
fund’s holdings is required. The current threshold is 80% equity weight covered, meaning that at
least 80% of a fund's holdings must be equities that can be covered by the Morningstar Global
Page 6 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

Equity Risk Model to be included. Note, the portfolio holdings in the Morningstar database are
updated at different frequencies depending on the type of funds or specific agreements with fund
managers. In Factor Profile, we propagate the holdings to daily level assuming the most recently
reported holdings remain the same until the next update of the holdings. Funds with portfolios that
have carryforward applied are included in the factor profile coverage universe. The carryforward
period is limited to one year. This, along with the equity weight covered threshold leads to an
inclusion universe of 74,000 portfolios.
2. With the selected fund universe, for each factor score, sort the funds from highest to lowest scores
and calculate a percentile ranking from 1 to 100 for each fund. This means funds with higher
exposure scores will have lower percentile rankings. For example, when sorting on the size factor,
funds with many micro-cap stocks should have a high size score, as they are most exposed to the
small size premium. This means these funds should have a percentile rank near 1, while a fund of
large-cap companies should have a percentile score closer to 100.

Factor Profile Visual

The percentile rankings of a fund's factor scores are then plotted within the Factor Profile capsules as
displayed in Exhibit 1, where lower percentile rankings (high factor scores) are generally on the top of
the capsules. For example, a portfolio with a style ranking of 1 would have a high growth tilt, while 100
would indicate an extreme value exposure. For each factor, we provide the percentile ranking and the
associated characteristics of the portfolio in Exhibit 2. Note, for the size factor, the scale is flipped with
100 (large cap) on top and 1 (small cap) at the bottom; this helps simplify the Factor Profile visual by
keeping all “high” or “large” indicators aligned at the top.

Exhibit 2 Factor Profile Visual Scores

Style Yield Momentum Quality Volatility Liquidity Size

Growth: 1 High: 1 High: 1 High: 1 High: 1 High: 1 Large: 100
Value: 100 Low: 100 Low: 100 Low: 100 Low: 100 Low: 100 Small: 1

Source: Morningstar, Inc.

Application of Morningstar Factor Profile

In this section, we illustrate the application of Factor Profile from two perspectives. We first examine the
factor percentile rankings of several funds for three factors: size, volatility, and yield, as of September
2024. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the Factor Profile. Then, we consider how the factor
rankings of funds change over time.

Relative ranking of funds for different factors

As discussed above in the Factor Definition section and in the ranking methodology, funds and stocks of
larger market capitalization should have a higher size percentile ranking. Exhibit 3 contains the size
percentile rankings for a selected sample of Morningstar indexes. As shown, the output is consistent
Page 7 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

with expectation, where large-cap funds have higher size percentile ranks, while small-cap funds have
lower size percentile ranks.

Exhibit 3 Morningstar Factor Profile Size Percentile for Selected Indexes

Index Size

Morningstar US Small Cap Index 9.52

Morningstar US Mid Cap Index 27.86
Morningstar US Large Cap Index 91.63
Morningstar Wide Moat Index 36.08

Source: Morningstar Direct. Data as of March 31, 2025.

Next, we illustrate the percentile rankings of the volatility factor. The methodology is designed to give
funds and stocks with higher volatility a lower percentile ranking and vice versa. Exhibit 4 shows the
volatility percentile ranks for a selected sample of funds. As shown, the minimum-volatility funds tend to
have the highest percentile rankings, while an ETF targeting high-beta stocks has a lower percentile
ranking.

Exhibit 4 Morningstar Factor Profile Volatility Percentile for Selected Funds

Index Volatility

SPDR® S&P 500 Low Volatility ETF 98.08

Fidelity US Low Volatility ETF 94.08
iShares Edge S&P 500 Min Vol ETF 85.31
Russell 2000 High Beta ETF 8.31

Source: Morningstar Direct. Data as of March 31, 2025.

Lastly, we show the percentile rankings of the yield factor among a sample of selected funds in Exhibit
5. As expected, small and growth-oriented portfolios have high percentile rankings as they tend to have
lower dividend yields. By contrast, funds that focus on dividends or buybacks have low percentile scores.

Exhibit 5 Morningstar Factor Profile Yield Percentile of Selected Funds and Indexes

Fund or Index Yield

Vanguard High Dividend Yield Index Fund 12.46

Morningstar US Dividend Composite TR USD 13.38
iShares Core High Dividend ETF 10.97
Morningstar US Small Growth Index 86.63

Source: Morningstar Direct. Data as of March 31, 2025.

Page 8 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

How factor percentile rankings change over time

In this section, we use Morningstar US Large Cap Index, Morningstar US Growth Index, and Morningstar
US Value Index to demonstrate how the factor percentile rankings change over time for typical funds.

In Exhibit 6, we can see that the size, style (value growth), yield, and quality rankings of Morningstar US
Large Cap Index are relatively stable among the fund universe. This is not surprising as these factors
tend to capture the fundamental characteristics of companies. These characteristics tend to change
slowly over time, resulting in more-stable rankings among companies and funds.

Exhibit 6 Factor Percentile Rankings of Morningstar US Large-Cap Index–Size, Style, Yield, and Quality

By contrast, the momentum, volatility, and liquidity rankings of Morningstar US Market Index have been
quite volatile, as shown in Exhibit 7. This is because these factors tend to be influenced more by market
conditions, which tend to change more rapidly.
Page 9 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

Exhibit 7 Factor Percentile Rankings of Morningstar US Large-Cap Index–Volatility, Momentum, and

Liquidity

Exhibit 8 shows the relative ranking of the style (value-growth) factor of the Morningstar US Growth
Index and the Morningstar US Value Index. As we can see, the Factor Profile factor ranking correctly
placed the growth index at the top end of the percentile and the value index at the lower percentile.

Exhibit 8 Style Percentile Ranking of the Morningstar US Growth Index and Morningstar US Value Index
Page 10 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

References

Ang, A., Hodrick, R.J., Xing, Y., & Zhang. X. 2006. "The Cross-Section of Volatility and Expected Returns."
The Journal of Finance, Vol. 61, P. 259.

Amihud, Y., & Mendelson, H. 1986. "Asset Pricing and the Bid-Ask Spread." Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 17, No. 2, P. 223.

Asness, C.S., Frazzini, A., & Pedersen, L.H. 2019. "Quality Minus Junk." Review of Accounting Studies,
Vol. 24, No. 1, P. 34.

Amihud, Y. & Mendelson, H. 1989. "The Effects of Beta, Bid-Ask Spread, Residual Risk, and Size on Stock
Returns." The Journal of Finance, Vol. 44, No. 2, P. 479.

Amihud, Y. 2002. “Illiquidity and Stock Returns: Cross-Section and Time-Series Effects.” Journal of
Financial Markets, Vol. 5, No. 1, P. 31.

Banz, R.W. 1981. “The Relationship Between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks.” Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 9, No. 1, P. 3.

Basu, S. 1977. “Investment Performance of Common Stocks in Relation to Their Price-Earnings Ratios: A
Test of the Efficient Market Hypothesis.” The Journal of Finance, Vol. 32 No. 3, P. 663-682.

Blume, M.E. 1980. “Stock Returns and Dividend Yields: Some More Evidence.” The Review of Economics
and Statistics 62(4): 567-577.

Carhart, M.M. 1997. "On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance." The Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, No.
1, P. 57.

Fama, E.F., & French, K.R. 1993. “Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stock and Bonds.” Journal of
Financial Economics, Vol. 33, No. 1, P. 3.

Jegadeesh, N., & Titman, S. 1993. “Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock
Market Efficiency.” The Journal of Finance, Vol. 48, No. 1, P. 65.

Morningstar. 2018. Morningstar Style Box Methodology.

[Link]
Page 11 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

Morningstar. 2019. Morningstar Risk Model Methodology.

[Link]

Sloan, R. 1996. “Do Stock Prices Fully Reflect Information in Accruals and Cash Flows About Future
Earnings?” The Accounting Review, Vol. 71, No. 3, P. 28.
Page 12 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

Appendix A: Contributors and Version History

Version 1.1, April 30, 2025

Patrick Wang, PhD

Associate Director of Quantitative Research
[Link]@[Link]

Jason Xie, PhD

Quantitative Analyst
[Link]@[Link]

Updates in This Version

1. Added Appendix A: Contributors and Version History
2. Added new information on equity weight covered threshold and allowance of portfolio carryforward
in determining coverage.

Version 1.0, Nov. 20, 2019

Timothy Strauts
Director of Quantitative Research
[Link]@[Link]

Michael Manetta, CFA

Lead Quantitative Analyst
[Link]@[Link]

Patrick Wang, PhD

Quantitative Analyst
[Link]@[Link]
Page 13 of 13 Morningstar Factor Profile Methodology

?
22 West Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60602 USA

©2025 Morningstar. All Rights Reserved. Unless otherwise provided in a separate agreement, you may use this report only in the
country in which its original distributor is based. The information, data, analyses, and opinions presented herein do not constitute
investment advice; are provided solely for informational purposes and therefore are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are
not warranted to be correct, complete, or accurate. The opinions expressed are as of the date written and are subject to change
without notice. Except as otherwise required by law, Morningstar shall not be responsible for any trading decisions, damages, or
other losses resulting from, or related to, the information, data, analyses, or opinions or their use. The information contained herein
is the proprietary property of Morningstar and may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, or used in any manner, without the prior
written consent of Morningstar. To license the research, call +1 312 696-6869.