View more on these topics

Nic Cicutti: What’s driving Hargreaves’ Wealth 150 list?


Shortly after joining a national newspaper more than 20 years ago, my boss and I were casting around for a “nib” – news-in-brief – to fill a small last-minute hole in the personal finance section.

She picked up a press release from Hargreaves Lansdown on so-called shareholder perks and asked me to write it up. A swift fact-checking phone call later and the piece was ready.

The article gave details of one or two shares whose ownership entitled the holder to various discounts or other benefits. It then suggested that if readers wanted to know about more shares like this, they could call HL’s number for a full list.

Deep down, both my boss and HL – and I too – were aware of the unspoken mutual backscratching implicit in the write-up.

We got our quick story and HL picked up another few dozen or maybe a couple of hundred names and addresses to add to its mailing list.

Weeks or months later, those who had written in for a list of shareholder perks would receive a fat brochure full of application forms for HL’s various fund offerings, whose precise selection was a mystery.

Being cynical journalists, we suspected the list owed at least as much to the managers’ willingness to pay a marketing fee as it did to their superior investment performance.

Times have changed, but old suspicions never die. In the past few weeks Hargreaves Lansdown has come under the spotlight, yet again, over its so-called Wealth 150 funds.

Last week, the Sunday Telegraph wrote that the FCA staff have been popping in to visit various big-name brokers to find out why some recommended funds are preferred over others.

FCA director of supervision Clive Adamson was quoted as saying: “This is a growing market and so we’re taking a look at it now to see how it’s evolving and explore whether firms are putting the customers’ interest at the heart of any product or service they sell.

“This will include how firms decide which products they make available to their customers, as well as the information and tools they provide to help them choose the right investments, and buy-lists will be part of this.”

The ST also helpfully reprinted snippets of Hargreaves’ unfortunate letter to fund managers last year, in which it asked them to strongly consider offering discounts to HL clients – or face the consequences.

The magazine What Investment also published details of the same letter in June last year. Fund companies were told HL was “easily the dominant force in the UK when it comes to direct investing”, and is “under no obligation or regulatory requirement” to carry anyone’s funds.

According to What Investment, HL offered a “complete reassessment” of its Wealth 150 list of recommended funds, “to take into account the discounts that will be offered on new share classes”. Its new Core Funds would be selected from among those offering “an extremely competitive price”.

“Our considerable and rapidly expanding distribution efforts will be used to extensively present these core funds to clients well above the support we will give to the Wealth 150,” Hargreaves supposedly told fund managers.

It is perhaps as a result of all this unwelcome interest that HL was last week forced to explain to both the trade and consumer press how it selects the funds appearing in its Wealth 150 list.

 On HL’s own website the company claims the list is “the product of rigorous mathematical analysis, combined with thousands of hours of interviews with leading fund managers, to ensure we only bring the very best funds to our clients’ attention”.

According to Hargreaves, its fund selection is based on their prospective, total return performance. It uses “specialist quantitative and qualitative analysis of the fund manager and their team” to do so.

HL says it judges prospective performance on investment skill first and price second.

Only members of its research team can recommend the addition or deletion of a fund from the list.

Averagely performing funds that are “cheap” are not included; funds are not guaranteed a slot on the Wealth 150, and money does not need to change hands for a fund to get on the list.

Let me put my cards on the table: I have long believed that, in cases where managers often charge much for achieving little, a fund’s costs can have a fundamental effect on overall investment returns.

I support the use of purchasing power to help bring down the cost of funds.

Moreover, one of my long-standing dislikes is over the way some advisers, resentful of the way Hargreaves has become so successful, have tended to slag off the firm – even though they are probably no more or less ethical in their business practices than HL.

The problem for me, however, is that HL’s carefully worded explanation, while helpful, still leaves open the possibility that funds stand a better chance of appearing on the Wealth 150 list because they their managers have agreed to offer them at a discount.

Nic Cicutti can be contacted at



In defence of preferred lists: Mark Dampier hits back at Nic Cicutti

As creator of Hargreaves Lansdown’s Wealth150 list and one of the people who worked hard to shape the Wealth150 Plus list, I take issue with Nic Cicutti’s article. I resent suggestions, direct or implied, that the list is chosen on a commercial basis. I believe the quality of this list stands out, although inevitably I […]


James Hay parent IFG Group sells IFA arm for up to £9.1m

James Hay and Saunderson House parent company IFG Group has sold its IFA arm to Ascot Lloyd. The acquisition comprises an initial payment of £3.5m. An additional £5.6m in deferred consideration over the next two years is dependent on future revenues. The move, subject to regulatory approval, will see IFG Financial Services, John Siddalls and Berkeley […]


L&G retirement profits surge 10% to £310m

Legal & General has posted a 10 per cent increase in pre-tax profit for 2013 from £1.03bn to £1.13bn as bulk annuity sales surged to £2.8bn. L&G’s annual results, published last week, revealed a 10 per cent increase in year on year operating profits for its retirement business from £281m to £310m. Annuity business rose 78 […]


Why are lenders so reluctant to lend to older people?

Since the FSA first announced its Mortgage Market Review plans in February 2009, many mainstream lenders have tightened their criteria on affordability and lending into retirement. Interest-only lending, the basis on which many who are currently entering retirement borrowed their mortgage, has essentially come to a halt, leaving thousands of borrowers facing a problem when […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. What should be of more concern is when is advice not advice – when its a wealth list!

  2. Yes, the growth of the client who is looking over the shoulder of the “adviser” and copying their investment ideas, which of course they then implement (because they have the impression it is advice) without proper protections and at running costs similar to that of full blown advice.

  3. correlationstreet 13th March 2014 at 1:00 pm

    As ever good piece Nic – I think that there are a number of issues at play here, price being the easiest to assess and measure. When you have a cheap fund you know what you have “saved”. More important and infinitely harder to measure with any reliability is the risk management and returns (net of fees) that you are getting in the future. Now I suspect that most of the funds on HL’s list are relative return as opposed to multi-asset (where the real risk management should happen) so they are going to correlate quite highly with the underlying benchmark. Nobody can accurately predict which managers will outperform even to a quartile prediction so I don’t accept the predictive powers and prospective total return magic that HL profess to possess.
    I remember back in the day when Russell Investments were called Frank Russell a fabulous slide all about the past and future positioning of top performing managers. They looked at where top ranked managers came from, position wise and where they ended up over varying time periods – 1, 3 and 5 years but don’t quote me. Guess what no predictability at all – generally speaking, managers outperform for limited periods and we have no proper way of knowing when that will be or for how long and also whether it was down to skill or luck.
    Having said that I think HL are a force for good in the industry on balance.

  4. 150 carefully selected funds who have given us a lot of money to push to you dear punter.
    We are not advising you, oh did we forget to say that, never mind, we will charge you anyway more than if we had or were able to.
    Is this what you are trying to say Nic ?

  5. Nic

    It is my understanding that HL have publically stated they will not be taking a marketing allowance from any of the fund groups, which means they will be getting the fee from any of the fund groups, wealth 150 or otherwise.
    In fact in these circumstances the way to ensure maximum income is to recommend funds you truly believe will outperform the market as this will increase your income.

Leave a comment


Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm