Notes from the Trading Desk – Franklin Templeton

Franklin Templeton’s Notes from the Trading Desk offers a weekly overview of what their professional traders and analysts are watching in the markets. The European desk is manned by eight professionals based in Edinburgh, Scotland, with an average of 15 years of experience whose job it is to monitor the markets around the world. Their views are theirs alone and are not intended to be construed as investment advice.

The Digest

Last week saw global equity markets pause for breath, with most major indices declining when faced with a sobering economic outlook from the US Federal Reserve (Fed) and fears of a second wave of COVID-19 infections. In addition, we have seen meteoric gains in recent weeks, so many suggest a pullback was overdue. On the week, the MSCI World Index traded -4.5%; Stoxx Europe Index 600 -5.7%; S&P 500 Index -4.8% and MSCI Asia Index -1.1%.

Equity Markets Pause for Breath

Market performance was fairly lacklustre during the first half of last week, but Thursday’s trading session (11 June) in particular saw some sharp declines for equity markets, with the S&P 500 Index -5.9% and the Stoxx Europe Index 600 -4.1%. Rather than one “smoking gun” reason, it felt as if a number of factors combined to weigh on investor sentiment.

Economic reality check: Whilst the Fed meeting on 10 June didn’t produce too many surprises, the overall message from the Fed did provide a stark reminder of the challenges facing the US economy. Despite the recent better-than-expected US employment data, Fed Chair Jerome Powell stated: “I think we have to be honest, it’s a long road. Depending on how you count it, well more than 20 million people displaced in the labour market. It’s going to take some time.”

The Fed predicted US gross domestic product (GDP) will contract by 6.5% this year before rebounding 5% next year. The central bank did stress it would support the economy, stating interest rates were likely to be held near zero through 2022 and it would maintain asset purchases “at least” at the present pace.

Last week also saw a somber report form the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) that stated many major economies faced a tough recovery from the crisis. In its view, “Most people see a V-shaped recovery, but we think it’s going to stop halfway. By the end of 2021, the loss of income exceeds that of any previous recession over the last 100 years outside wartime, with dire and long-lasting consequences for people, firms and governments.” If we avoid a second wave, the global economy would still likely be 6% smaller by end of 2021 than pre-COVID predictions. If there were to be a second wave, this could be closer to 10%.

What was also interesting in the OECD report was the different regional predictions. The OECD sees South Korea only contracting 1.2% in 2020, with growth of 3.1% next year. However, it sees the UK economy shrinking 11.5% in 2020, with a 9% rebound in 2021.

COVID-19 second wave fears: The Fed meeting coincided with headlines that US COVID-19 infections had topped two million, and there were signs of cases creeping up in a number of US states. States such as Texas, Florida and California all saw increased daily cases. This news certainly helped spook investors last week when sentiment was already gloomy.

US presidential election campaign in focus: Democratic candidate Joe Biden has seen polls swing in his favour in recent weeks, and there is increasing focus on the impact of a potential Biden victory. Of note, Biden has said he would reverse some of the corporate tax cuts the Trump administration put in place. From what we’ve seen, it doesn’t appear that markets are pricing this outcome in, with the main beneficiaries of the tax cuts continuing to trade higher despite falling odds of a Trump victory. We think the election will be a key dynamic for equity markets in coming months.

Too much, too quickly: Since the lows on 23 March, the S&P 500 Index saw an epic rally of 45%. Many equity indices were being flagged as overbought. With that in mind, it is perhaps not surprising to see markets pull back. The 3200 level on the S&P 500 Index appeared to have been a resistance level where the US market has failed. We see key support likely at the 200-day moving average—the average price over the past 200 days—close to the 3000 level.

The Week in Review


Last week’s market selloff saw European equities underperform their US counterparts and close the week down 5.7%. The year-to-date (YTD) underperformers were the underperformers once again last week, as the cyclicals gave back some of their recent gains. Whilst they are still +25% from March’s lows, they remain -17% YTD.

The cautious economic outlook, fears over a second coronavirus wave, and the extent of the recent rally all contributed to the selloff. On the macro front, the picture was dire from the United Kingdom and pointed towards a deteriorating economy. April GDP was -20.4% month-on-month, even worse than the 18.7% decline expected as a result of the pandemic lockdown. Industrial production fell by a record 20.3% month-on-month and total retail sales were also disappointing. No part of the economy was left unscathed.

This comes alongside the backdrop of difficult Brexit negotiations. Last week the United Kingdom formally rejected an extension to the transition period. Whilst this was not a huge surprise, it still dented sentiment. The focus now turns to Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s meeting with the European Union (EU) leaders on 15 June. It was noteworthy that Michael Gove (government minister) was reported to abandon the key demand of full border checks this week, accepting business cannot be expected to cope with COVID-19 and disruption at the border after 2020.

With the economic slump and Brexit bubbling away, the pound came under pressure, closing the week -1% vs. the US dollar. Eurozone data also suffered, with industrial production for the region plummeting by an unprecedented 17% in April.

Another risk to be aware of is a potential escalation of EU/US trade tensions as Germany, France, Spain and Italy have collectively proposed a minimum tax level for multinational companies. An effective taxation of at least 12%-15% has been suggested, and adds to existing friction with the United States. The US Trade Representative is already probing the EU on digital tax laws (which was a precursor to tariffs in China’s case), seeing France respond aggressively, saying that any new trade sanctions over digital services will spark a fast EU-wide retaliation. We expect the global trade tensions to escalate further in the coming weeks and months.

United States

US equities traded lower last week amidst the broad market decline. Despite showing some resilience at the start of the week, the S&P 500 Index sold off through Thursday and Friday, bouncing around the 3000 level. Market volatility was on the rise as the CBOE Market Volatility (VIX) index—considered a measure of “fear” in the market—closed the week up 67%. Jerome Powell’s cautious economic outlook, fears of a rise in COVID-19 infections and a shift in market sentiment as equity valuations become stretched were all cited as reasons for the market pullback. US-China trade tensions, the US presidential election and continued civil unrest provide further overhangs at the moment. The rotation we had seen the week before in terms of sector performance reversed last week with the YTD winners back at the top of the pile. Technology was the relative outperformer and energy stocks lagged once again as oil prices came under pressure.

Away from Fed updates, fears over a second wave of COVID-19 infections have risen in certain states throughout the United States. A number of states which were earlier to reopen have experienced an increase in the number of cases. Infections in Arizona, for example, rose at an average of 4.6% per day last week, a marked increase from two weeks prior when rates were rising 3.3%. There are also concerns in the three most populous states—Texas, California and Florida—where infections are back at new highs. Texas reported a further 2,504 cases on 10 June, the highest one-day total since the virus spread. Despite cases across the United States as a whole being some way off their peak, it is the potential for further lockdown rules to be applied in these key states, which has spooked equity markets once again. Optimism had been rising over a number of weeks that we were through the works of the virus; however, these latest figures are a clear warning to local and national governments over complacency.

Macroeconomic data out of the United States was mixed last week. The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey report came in below market expectations on 9 June, but the weekly jobless claims report was better than expected. Yet, whilst it showed another decline in the number of claims, it was clear that the labour market remains way off pre-virus levels. The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits in the week to 6 June was 1.5 million, lifting the total reported since 21 March to 44.2 million.

Asia Pacific (APAC)

Equities in the APAC region were also worse off last week, but did show some relative resilience, with the MSCI Asia Pacific Index down just 1.1% on the week. Like the United States and Europe, the market selloff came towards the end of last week, with the key themes we have already discussed at play. It was a similar story in terms of sector moves in APAC. with health care and communication services, the two outperformers YTD, leading the way again last week. Like in the United States, energy stocks were the week’s laggard and financials were also under pressure.

Chinese trade data was in focus last week, with May exports outperforming market expectations. Textile shipments surged, including medical care products such as gowns and masks, whilst exports of high-tech products also increased. In terms of bilateral trading with the United States, the trade surplus that China enjoys decreased to US$91.5 billion through the first five months of the year, down from US$110.4 billion for the same period last year. With imports down, it is very unlikely that China is going to satisfy the purchase agreement of US goods as set out in the “Phase One” trade deal.

On 15 June, Asian equities were weak amid reports of an uptick in coronavirus cases and disappointing economic data. Beijing reported another 100 new virus cases over the weekend, prompting a partial shutdown of the city. Until this weekend, Beijing had gone 50 days without any new infections. Meanwhile, Tokyo also reported an increase in infections. Also weighing on markets this morning is the Chinese industrial production report, which came in below expectations, growing 4.4% year-on-year vs. expectations of 5% growth. Meanwhile, retail sales in China also disappointed, -2.8% vs -2.3% expected.

Week Ahead

It’s relatively quiet on the data front this week, but the United Kingdom will be in focus with the Bank of England interest rate decision on 18 June and a Brexit discussion between Johnson and European Commission (EC) President Ursula Von der Leyen on 15 June. We also have the video conferenced EU summit on 19 June, where European leaders will discuss the EC’s proposed recovery fund, and potentially give an update on Brexit negotiations.

Market Holidays:

Fri 19 June  – Finland & Sweden (Midsummers Eve)


Monday 15 June:

  • Economic / Political: Riksbank’s Breman and the Fed’s Kaplan both speak.
  • Data: United Kingdom: Rightmove HPI; Eurozone: Trade Balance; China: Industrial Production, Retail Sales; US: Empire Manufacturing report.

Tuesday 16 June:

  • Economical/Political: Bank of Japan (BOJ) interest-rate announcement, Powell delivers semi-annual policy report to the US Senate.
  • Data: UK: Claimant Count & Jobless claims, ILO Unemployment; Germany: ZEW Survey; Eurozone: ZEW Survey; United States: Retail Sales, Industrial Production

Wednesday 17 June:

  • Economic/Political: The US Fed’s Mester speaks.
  • Data: United Kingdom: CPI; Italy: Industrial Orders; Eurozone: EU27 New Car Registrations; Japan: Trade Balance; United States: Department of Energy data, Housing Starts

Thursday 18 July:

  • Economic/Political: Band of England interest-rate Announcement; Norges Bank Interest-Rate Announcement; Swiss SNB Rate Announcement; European Central Bank publishes economic bulletin
  • Data: Italy: Trade Balance; United States: Initial Jobless Claims

Friday 19 June:

  • Economical/Political: European Council Meeting; BOJ April meeting minutes; Fed’s Rosengren speaks
  • Data: United Kingdom: Retail Sales; Germany: Producer Price Index month over month/year over year; Japan: Consumer Price Index

Franklin Templeton Key risks & Disclaimers:

What Are the Risks?

All investments involve risk, including possible loss of principal. The value of investments can go down as well as up, and investors may not get back the full amount invested. Stock prices fluctuate, sometimes rapidly and dramatically, due to factors affecting individual companies, particular industries or sectors, or general market conditions. Bond prices generally move in the opposite direction of interest rates. Thus, as prices of bonds in an investment portfolio adjust to a rise in interest rates, the value of the portfolio may decline. Investments in foreign securities involve special risks including currency fluctuations, economic instability and political developments. Investments in developing markets involve heightened risks related to the same factors, in addition to those associated with their relatively small size and lesser liquidity. Past performance is not an indicator or guarantee of future performance.

This article reflects the analysis and opinions of Franklin Templeton’s European Trading Desk as of 15 June 2020, and may vary from the analysis and opinions of other investment teams, platforms, portfolio managers or strategies at Franklin Templeton. Because market and economic conditions are often subject to rapid change, the analysis and opinions provided may change without notice. An assessment of a particular country, market, region, security, investment or strategy is not intended as an investment recommendation, nor does it constitute investment advice. Statements of fact are from sources considered reliable, but no representation or warranty is made as to their completeness or accuracy. This article does not provide a complete analysis of every material fact regarding any country, region, market, industry or security. Nothing in this document may be relied upon as investment advice or an investment recommendation. The companies named herein are used solely for illustrative purposes; any investment may or may not be currently held by any portfolio advised by Franklin Templeton. Data from third-party sources may have been used in the preparation of this material and Franklin Templeton (“FT”) has not independently verified, validated or audited such data. FT accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss arising from use of this information and reliance upon the comments, opinions and analyses in the material is at the sole discretion of the user. Products, services and information may not be available in all jurisdictions and are offered by FT affiliates and/or their distributors as local laws and regulations permit. Please consult your own professional adviser for further information on availability of products and services in your jurisdiction. 

Issued by Franklin Templeton Investment Management Limited (FTIML) Registered office: Cannon Place, 78 Cannon Street, London EC4N 6HL. FTIML is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

MeDirect Disclaimers:

This information has been accurately reproduced, as received from Franklin Templeton Investment Management Limited (FTIML). No information has been omitted which would render the reproduced information inaccurate or misleading. This information is being distributed by MeDirect Bank (Malta) plc to its customers. The information contained in this document is for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or other professional advice nor does it commit MeDirect Bank (Malta) plc to any obligation whatsoever. The information available in this document is not intended to be a suggestion, recommendation or solicitation to buy, hold or sell, any securities and is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness.

The financial instruments discussed in the document may not be suitable for all investors and investors must make their own informed decisions and seek their own advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in financial instruments or implementing strategies discussed herein.

If you invest in this product you may lose some or all of the money you invest. The value of your investment may go down as well as up. A commission or sales fee may be charged at the time of the initial purchase for an investment and may be deducted from the invested amount therefore lowering the size of your investment. Any income you get from this investment may go down as well as up. This product may be affected by changes in currency exchange rate movements thereby affecting your investment return therefrom. The performance figures quoted refer to the past and past performance is not a guarantee of future performance or a reliable guide to future performance. Any decision to invest in a mutual fund should always be based upon the details contained in the Prospectus and Key Investor Information Document (KIID), which may be obtained from MeDirect Bank (Malta) plc.

Exploring Mutual Funds – Measuring Risk and Return

Ray Calleja

An article written by Ray Calleja: Head – Private Clients, MeDirect

In the previous article we started discussing risk ratios that are used in modern portfolio theory, when it comes to assessing the risk and return of a mutual fund. We described what Standard Deviation, Beta and R-Squared are. Here we will discuss the two remaining risk ratios namely Alpha and the Sharpe Ratio before looking at the two most well-known Morningstar Ratings for funds – the Star and Analyst Ratings. You can find all these ratios and ratings on the Morningstar fund reports on the MeDirect website.


It is a risk adjusted performance statistic, which evaluates how good a job a fund manager has done. It will show the added value he or she has made to the fund over and above the return achieved by the market over a specific time period. Alpha is the difference between a fund’s average excess return and the market’s average excess return adjusted for systematic risk, as measured by beta. Systematic risk are factors such as inflation, changes in interest rates, fluctuations in currencies, recessions, pandemics, etc. These are macro factors which influence the direction and volatility of the entire market. In contrast, unsystematic risk is company specific or industry specific risk. You will recall that beta is a measure of a stock’s volatility in relation to the market. It measures the exposure of risk a particular fund or sector has in relation to the market.

A 90-day treasury bill serves as a proxy or substitute for a risk-free investment and it is assumed that the return of a mutual fund should, at the very least, exceed that of a risk-free investment. This figure gives you the fund’s excess return over the risk-free, guaranteed investment. From that, subtract the fund’s expected excess return based on its beta. What’s left over is the alpha.

Let us take the example of a mutual fund which has realised a return of 12% during the last year. The appropriate benchmark index for the fund has a book annual return of 9%. Further, the beta of the mutual fund against its benchmark index is 1.2, while the risk-free rate of return is 3%. Let us calculate the alpha of the fund:

Expected rate of return = Risk-free rate of return + β x (Benchmark return less the Risk-free rate of return)

Expected rate of return = 3% + 1.2 x (9% less 3%) = 10.2%

Therefore, calculation of Alpha of the mutual fund will be as follows:

Alpha of the mutual fund = Actual rate of return less the Expected rate of return

Alpha = 12% – 10.2% = 1.8%

The alpha of the mutual fund is therefore 1.8%.

Positive alpha for a fund indicates that a fund manager delivered a better return than what would be predicted based on the fund’s beta. A negative alpha indicates the opposite, i.e. that the fund manager delivered a worse return than predicted. Alpha can be a helpful tool to evaluate how good a job the fund manager has done.  But there are a few issues to keep in mind. A meaningful alpha is completely dependent on a meaningful beta value, i.e. that the benchmark is directly correlated to the mutual fund. Secondly, you should only compare alphas of similar investments. Since we are here talking about mutual funds, you must compare funds within the same category. It is also important to keep in mind that where an unskilled fund manager gets lucky and generate positive alpha while the inverse is also possible where a skilful fund manager could get unlucky during a particular period of time and generate negative alpha.

Sharpe Ratio

As an investor it is easy to fall into the trap to focus solely on the return of a mutual fund. The fund that achieves a higher return is coveted more than the fund which achieves a lower return but we must also take into account risk when assessing an investment. If for example you have two funds which have similar returns, how do you differentiate between one and the other, in terms of risk and return? This is where the Sharpe Ratio can be quite useful. The Sharpe Ratio has become the most widely used method of calculating risk-adjusted returns.

The Sharpe Ratio formula is calculated by dividing the difference of the best available risk-free rate of return (say a short-term Treasury bill) and the average rate of return by the standard deviation (which shows how much variation there is from the mean or average) of the portfolio’s return.

(Portfolio Return – Risk Free Rate) / Portfolio Standard Deviation

We are basically subtracting the risk-free rate of return from the mean return to isolate the return based on the level of risk. We can then evaluate the investment performance based on the risk-free return. Basically, the Sharpe ratio equation adjusts portfolios or mutual funds for risk and puts them all on a level risk playing field, so they can all be compared equally. A higher Sharpe metric is always better than a lower one because a higher ratio indicates that the portfolio is making better investment decisions and not being swayed by the risk associated with it. Here is a list of Sharpe ratio grades and what they mean:  <1 – is not considered good; 1-1.99 – is considered good; 2-2.99 – is considered very good; >3 – is considered exceptional.

Let us assume that you want to compare two different mutual funds in your portfolio with different risk levels. Obviously, the riskier of the two will tend to have higher returns, but which one has a higher return relative to the risk associated with the investment? We will use the Sharpe ratio to see which one is performing better.

Article Image

As you can see, fund B out-performed fund A by a rate of 50% (30% vs 20% return), but this doesn’t mean that fund B performed well relative to its risk level. The Sharpe ratio tells us that fund A actually performed better than fund B relative to the risk involved in the investment. If Fund B performed as well as fund A relative to risk, it would have earned a return of 90%. Fund B may have earned a higher return this year, but it has a higher risk and likelihood of volatility in the future.

It is considered that the Sharpe ratio has a real advantage over alpha. Remember that standard deviation measures the volatility of a fund’s return in absolute terms, not relative to an index. So, whereas a fund’s R-squared must be high for alpha to be meaningful, Sharpe ratios are meaningful all the time.

Moreover, it is easier to compare funds of all types using the standard-deviation-based Sharpe ratio than with beta-based alpha. Unlike beta—which is usually calculated using different benchmarks for equity and bond funds—standard deviation is calculated the exact same way for any type of fund, be it for equities or bonds. We can therefore use the Sharpe ratio to compare the risk-adjusted returns of stock funds with those of bond funds.

As with alpha, the main drawback of the Sharpe ratio is that it is expressed as a raw number. Of course, the higher the Sharpe ratio the better. But given no other information, you cannot tell whether a Sharpe ratio of 1.5 is good or bad. Only when you compare one fund’s Sharpe ratio with that of another fund or a group of funds do you get a feel for its risk-adjusted return relative to other funds.

Morningstar Star Rating

This leads us to the next point in today’s article – the Morningstar star rating. Unlike alpha and the Sharpe ratio, the Morningstar Rating for Funds puts data into context, making it more intuitive. You can find a fund’s Morningstar Rating on its Morningstar fund report.

The star rating is a purely mathematical measure that shows how well a fund’s past returns have compensated shareholders for the amount of risk it has taken on.

Because of the fear of investors of losing money, a fund’s risk rating counts for fully one-half of its overall Morningstar Rating. The other half looks at a fund’s return relative to other funds in its category.

The Morningstar return rating is calculated much the same way as the risk rating. The same combination of time periods is used, i.e. 3-, 5- and 10-year returns go into the calculation. A fund’s returns are also adjusted for any sales charges to better reflect what real-life investors would have earned. As with the risk rating, funds that rank in the top 10% of their categories on the return front earn a return rating of High; the next-best, 22.5% earn a return rating of Above Average, and so on.

This means that Morningstar will have both a risk rating and a return rating for a fund, and the next step is to put them together into an overall rating calculation. By combining risk and return, Morningstar come up with a risk-adjusted return score for each fund in a category. The funds are then ranked according to their scores. The highest-scoring 10% of funds within each category earn five stars, the next 22.5% get four stars, the middle 35% get three stars, the next 22.5% two stars and the worst 10% receive a single star. Star ratings are calculated at the end of every month.

Funds with less than three years of performance history are not rated. For funds with only three years of performance history, their three-year star ratings will be the same as their overall star ratings. For funds with five-year records, their five-year histories will count for 60% of their overall rating and their three-year rating will count for 40% of the overall rating. For funds with more than a decade of performance, the overall rating will be weighted as 50% for the 10-year rating, 30% for the five-year rating, and 20% for the three-year rating.

If a fund changes Morningstar categories during the evaluation period, its historical performance within the other category is given less weight in its star rating, based on the magnitude of the change. (For example, a change from a small-cap category to large-cap category is considered more significant than a change from mid-cap to large-cap). Doing so ensures the fairest comparisons and minimises any incentive for fund companies to change a fund’s style in an attempt to receive a better rating by shifting to another Morningstar category.

As an investor, you can use the star rating to weed out funds that have been too risky for too little gain and focus your search for better managed funds. The star rating can also be used to monitor your existing holdings. It does not mean that you should sell a fund as soon as it loses a star but if one of your funds falls below three stars, then it is time to dig in and find out what’s going on. It may indicate a temporary situation that the fund manager has encountered but it may also indicate a more serious problem.

If a management change occurs the rating stays with the fund, as it does not transfer with the manager to a new fund. That means that a fund’s rating could be based mostly on the performance of a fund manager, who is no longer there. It follows that the star rating is based on how the fund performed in the past and it won’t predict what lies ahead in the future.

Rather than buying funds based on their ratings, investors should first decide on an overall portfolio strategy and then seek the best funds for each portion of their portfolios. Use the star rating as a first screen.

Morningstar Analyst Rating

Morningstar does have a forward-looking metric: the Analyst Rating for funds. The analyst rating is a summary of Morningstar’s conviction in the fund’s ability to outperform its peer group and/or relevant benchmark on a risk-adjusted basis.

Morningstar assigns the Analyst Rating to funds that analysts qualitatively assess, typically through manager interviews and other sources. Morningstar evaluates funds on the basis of five key pillars which they believe identify funds most likely to outperform over the long term on a risk-adjusted basis.

  • People – How talented are the fund’s managers and analysts? Do the experience and resources match the strategy?
  • Process – What is the fund’s strategy and does management have a competitive advantage enabling it to execute the process well and consistently over time?
  • Performance – Is the fund’s performance pattern logical given its process? Has the fund earned its keep with strong risk-adjusted returns over relevant time periods?
  • Parent – What priorities prevail at the firm? Stewardship or salesmanship?
  • Price – Is the fund a good value proposition compared with similar funds sold through similar channels?

Investors can use the Analyst Rating to form expectations of how a fund will perform over a full market cycle when compared to a relevant benchmark index or similar funds.

The Analyst Rating takes the form of Gold, Silver, Bronze, Neutral, and Negative. The Analyst Rating denotes an analyst’s conviction in a fund’s investment merits. Analysts typically re-evaluate Analyst Ratings on an annual basis.

  • Gold rated funds have Morningstar’s highest-conviction recommendations and stand out as best-of-breed for their investment mandate.
  • Silver rated funds that fall in this band are high-conviction recommendations. They have notable advantages across several, but perhaps not all, of the five pillars.
  • Bronze rated funds have advantages that clearly outweigh any disadvantages, giving the analysts the conviction to award them a positive rating.
  • Neutral funds in which Morningstar do not have a strong positive or negative conviction. In their judgement, they are not likely to deliver standout returns, but not likely to seriously underperform either
  • Negative funds possess at least one flaw that Morningstar believe is likely to significantly hamper future performance, such as high fees or an unstable management team.
  • Under review rating is given to funds where a change to a rated fund requires further review to determine the impact on the rating.
  • Not ratable – this designation means either that a fund has failed to provide sufficient transparency to determine a rating, or that Morningstar are providing information on a new strategy where investors require guidance as to suitability, but there is not yet sufficient information to rate the fund.

Morningstar’s analyst teams monitor the strategies they cover for developments that may affect the rating decision and provide updates on such matters as soon as possible. Managed Strategy Analyst Ratings and reports are otherwise updated once per year (report data is updated monthly).

The above is for informative purposes only and should not be construed as an offer to sell or solicitation of an offer to subscribe for or purchase any investment. The information provided is subject to change without notice and does not constitute investment advice. MeDirect Bank (Malta) plc has based this document on information obtained from sources it believes to be reliable but which have not been independently verified and therefore does not provide any guarantees, representations or warranties.

MeDirect Bank (Malta) plc, company registration number C34125, is licensed by the Malta Financial Services Authority under the Banking Act (Cap. 371) and the Investment Services Act (Cap. 370). 

The financial instruments discussed may not be suitable for all investors and investors must make their own informed decisions and seek their own advice regarding the appropriateness of investing in financial instruments or implementing strategies discussed herein. 

If you invest in any of the products discussed you may lose some or all of the money you invest. The value of your investment may go down as well as up. A commission or sales fee may be charged at the time of the initial purchase for an investment and may be deducted from the invested amount therefore lowering the size of your investment. Any income you get from this investment may go down as well as up. This product may be affected by changes in currency exchange rate movements thereby affecting your investment return therefrom. The performance figures quoted refer to the past and past performance is not a guarantee of future performance or a reliable guide to future performance. Any decision to invest in a mutual fund should always be based upon the details contained in the Prospectus and Key Investor Information Document (KIID), which may be obtained from MeDirect Bank (Malta) plc.


We strive to ensure a streamlined account opening process, via a structured and clear set of requirements and personalised assistance during the initial communication stages. If you are interested in opening a corporate account with MeDirect, please complete an Account Opening Information Questionnaire and send it to

For a comprehensive list of documentation required to open a corporate account please contact us by email at or by phone on (+356) 2557 4444.