I have been interested to note the amount of exposure that Money Marketing has given over the last few weeks to the wealth list published recently by Hargreaves Lansdown.
The wealth list, for anyone not having read Money Marketing of late, is Hargreaves Lansdown's list of the 150 funds it considers to be worthy of consideration by investors, leaving the remaining 1,650 out in the cold. Given the amount of execution-only business which Hargreaves Lansdown produces, I am sure that the various investment houses will be falling over themselves to get on to this preferred list.
But any prospective client might reasonably question Hargreaves Lansdown's credentials in picking winners by considering the performance of the company's in-house portfolios (as promoted by its now defunct advisory arm) prior to them being wound up a while ago. During their lifetime, the portfolios were constituted from various funds considered by Hargreaves Lansdown as being best of breed. Did these portfolios outperform their respective benchmarks? I would be happy to know the answer.
Personally, I would much sooner rely on the much more extensive research and analysis capabilities of Standard & Poor's.
Name and address supplied