There are thousands of articles explaining ISAs, funds, equities, bonds, diversification, risk and compound returns. Financial education has never been more accessible. Yet millions of people continue to hold their long-term savings in cash rather than consider investing.
Perhaps that tells us something important. The barriers separating savers from investors aren’t simply educational. They are emotional, behavioural and social.
The investment industry has spent years explaining investing. Perhaps we now need to spend more time getting people talking about it.
Research accompanying the Take the Next Step. Invest. campaign launched earlier this year illustrated the challenge. It found that 44% of people with savings had no investments, equating to around 10.1 million people. More revealing from a communications perspective was that 37% of savers said they would be more likely to invest after talking to somebody they know who already invests. Yet 69% said they rarely or never talk about investing.
That matters because people don’t make financial decisions on information alone.
Confidence and familiarity matter. Fear of losing money matters. Choice can be overwhelming. And whether we see investing as something ‘people like us’ actually do matters too.
Think about the financial subjects we readily discuss. We talk about mortgages, house prices, pensions, energy bills and savings rates. Investing is different. For many people, it remains private, complicated and slightly intimidating.
If nobody around you talks about investing, it is easy to assume it is something other people do – people who are wealthier, financially sophisticated or understand what is happening in markets.
This is where PR and communications can play an important role.
Not by telling people what to invest in, minimising risk or turning journalists, influencers or friends into financial advisers. PR’s role can be more fundamental: making investing more visible, relatable and human.
Nobody’s life ambition is to achieve an appropriately diversified asset allocation. People want security, choices and financial freedom. They may want to help their children, retire comfortably, travel or simply give the money they have worked hard to accumulate the opportunity to grow over the long term.
So perhaps we should move the conversation from “Why invest?” to “What are you investing for?”
Behind those first investments are stories people can identify with: the nervous first click; the person who assumed they needed thousands of pounds before they could begin; the parent who started thinking differently about their financial future after having a child; or the fifty-something who wondered whether they had left it too late.
These stories can do something another product explainer cannot. They can demonstrate that investing isn’t exclusively the preserve of experts or the wealthy.
The distinction is important. The value is in sharing the experience, not recommending the investment.
The objective shouldn’t be to push people towards a transaction. It should be to help move people from passive to curious, from curious to informed and from informed to confident enough to make their own decisions.
This is where PR can move beyond generating awareness and become a meaningful part of financial education.
Too often communications success is measured at the bottom of the funnel; clicks, leads, account openings and assets invested. But those measures overlook much of the journey before somebody feels ready to make a financial decision.
That also means thinking differently about measurement. Are people more comfortable talking about investing? Do fewer believe investing is only for the wealthy? Do they understand risk better? Do they know where to find reliable information? Are they more confident asking questions?
Financial education will always be essential. People need clear information about investing, risk and their options. But information alone doesn’t automatically create confidence.
Sarah Gibbons-Cook is a Director at Quill PR
As I’m writing this, the UK has just experienced its fifth heatwave of the summer with another record-breaking day of 38.1 degrees in London’s Kew Gardens on August 13th. It’s a stark reminder that the climate crisis is no longer an abstract problem for the next generation to figure out.
Our scorching summer has put the climate crisis front and centre, but the question remains: what can we actually do about it?
Alongside our day-to-day habits – recycling, using water wisely, reduce our meat and dairy consumption – one way that is often overlooked is where our money is going. Choosing investments with environmental and social considerations can, in principle, help direct money towards companies developing renewable energy, cleaner transport, energy efficiency and other climate solutions.
But while doing my own research of where I can put my money to good use, I came across an overwhelming number of ‘ESG’, impact, and sustainable funds that have been cashing in on one of the biggest themes of the past few years: artificial intelligence.
As someone who is more than sceptical about the seemingly sudden AI boom, I wondered how these AI companies are making their way into these types of funds.
Some argue that AI could play an important role in transforming vast swathes of industry, and could also have the potential to aid our endeavour in tackling the climate crisis. But it’s coming at a cost.
The International Energy Agency estimates that electricity consumption from data centres could more than double by 2030, reaching roughly 950 terawatt-hours globally, along with research from The Government Digital Sustainability Alliance’s (GDSA), stating that AI is predicted to lead to an increase in global water usage from 1.1bn to 6.6bn cubic metres by 2027 – the equivalent to more than half of the UK’s total water usage. That’s a figure that feels particularly uncomfortable this summer, with half of England officially declaring droughts in July and August, following record low rainfall and exceptionally high temperatures.
So, can companies responsible for increasing demand for energy and water really sit comfortably inside an ethical or sustainable investment portfolio?
ESG doesn’t necessarily mean that a company is environmentally friendly. It considers environmental, social and governance factors what assessing an investment, meaning technology companies can still appear in an ESG fund, despite having a significant environmental footprint.
For investors, this can make choosing a genuinely sustainable fund surprisingly difficult, which makes it increasingly important that investors look beyond the label and examine what the fund is actually holding.
What companies does the fund actually hold? What is the percentage in the portfolio? And what is the fund actually trying to achieve?
This is where ethical investing in the age of AI becomes less about avoiding technology altogether and more about understanding what our money is supporting.
Excluding every AI-related company, or company that implements AI, could mean missing businesses developing technology that may eventually help reduce emissions. But blindly investing in AI because it is the dominant growth story of the moment risks overlooking the environmental costs being created today.
As investors, we can’t control how quickly AI develops. But we can question where our money goes.
Most importantly, it’s about knowing what your boundaries are when it comes to investing in certain thematics. For me, AI isn’t one I want to embark on any time soon.
Emma Taylor is an Account Manager at Quill PR
When it comes to investing in the UK, there is usually something to suit every temperament. Craving safety? The blue-chip heavyweights of the FTSE 100 are there to oblige. Fancy a bit of spice? Small-caps can happily provide it. But sitting quietly between the two, often overlooked by the average investor, is a category that deserves far more attention than it gets: mid-caps.
Mid-caps are the classic middle child of the UK stock market. They arrived after the large-caps had already set the benchmark, and they grew up without the attention-grabbing volatility of the smaller names beneath them. The result is an index, the FTSE 250, that has spent years being written off as dull, domestically exposed and somehow perpetually disappointing. Yet the numbers tell a rather different story. The FTSE 250 has compounded at 8.9% a year, comfortably ahead of the German DAX, the French CAC 40, Japan’s Nikkei 225, MSCI Emerging Markets, and other indices that have a lot more attention that the 250. Only the giant US indices, backed by a domestic investment culture that has relentlessly championed its own companies, have done better.
That is an awkward fact for anyone who assumes the UK mid-cap space is broken. It isn’t – it has simply had to grow up the hard way. British mid-sized companies have weathered Brexit, forcing them to rebuild supply chains almost overnight; then Covid, which demanded they do it all over again; and more recently a jittery domestic economy alongside a chronic lack of support from UK pension funds and long-term capital, which have increasingly looked overseas rather than backing businesses at home. Listing rules have grown less competitive, disclosure requirements more burdensome, and government messaging about ambition and success has often been mixed at best.
And yet many of these companies have emerged leaner, more adaptable and more resilient than their large-cap peers, who often have one dominant lever to pull rather than many under their own control. Fund managers who spend their days combing through the FTSE 250 describe a pool of businesses that have quietly mastered “self-help”: tightening margins, sharpening cash generation and reinvesting in future growth rather than paying themselves lavishly the moment conditions improve. None of this is glamorous, but it is exactly the discipline that active managers look for.
What makes the space genuinely interesting to savvy investors is the combination of quality and growth available without paying a premium for it. Passive money has piled into a handful of mega-cap names at the top of the market, leaving structural growth stories further down the index relatively neglected, despite many of them having global reach, strong margins and outstanding management.
The FTSE 250 also offers routes into areas that would otherwise be hard to access, from defence and technology to niche, idiosyncratic businesses that don’t fit neatly into any single theme. Listed venture capital vehicles such as Molten Ventures give retail and institutional investors alike a rare public window onto fast-growing private companies, at a scale far beyond the 0.03% weighting such exposure would otherwise carry in a broad UK index.
None of this requires reinvention. It requires patience, active stock-picking, and a willingness to look past the crowd’s assumptions about what a “domestic” index really contains. The middle child of UK equities has never been the problem child some assume it to be; it has simply been quietly getting on with the job, waiting for someone to notice.
McKinley Sadler is an Account Manager at Quill PR.
The Citywealth Brand & Marketing Awards 2026 celebrate the individuals, teams and organisations shaping how the wealth management and professional services industries communicate, engage and build trust. The event was hosted by Rebecca Jones, BBC journalist. On hand to collect the trophy was Quill Account Director, Robbie Lawther.
The judges recognised that Quill PR has built one of the strongest reputations in financial services communications.
They noted: “Specialising exclusively in wealth and asset management, the agency helps clients raise their profile, strengthen their reputation, and communicate effectively with investors, advisers and the financial media. Combining specialist expertise with deep sector relationships, Quill continues to demonstrate the value of high-quality communications in an increasingly competitive market. For its contribution to the wealth and investment industry, Quill PR receives the Gold Award.”
We are delighted to announce that Quill PR has been named Marketing & PR Partner of the Year at the Investment Week Fund Manager of the Year Awards 2026, for the second consecutive year.
Retaining this prestigious title is a tremendous achievement and reflects the dedication, expertise and passion of our team, as well as the trust and support of our valued clients. The award recognises excellence in communications and marketing support for the asset and wealth management industry, celebrating firms that deliver measurable impact and outstanding client service.
Over the past year, we have continued to help clients build their profiles, navigate complex market developments, support major corporate activity and engage effectively with key stakeholders across the financial services sector. This recognition reinforces our commitment to delivering strategic, results-driven communications that make a difference.
We would like to thank our clients for their continued partnership and confidence in our team.
We are also grateful to Investment Week and the judging panel for this recognition, and we congratulate all the winners and shortlisted firms.
Two years in a row is a milestone we are incredibly proud of and we look forward to building on this success in the years ahead.
For UK investment firms, that silence is a missed opportunity to stand out from the crowd.
The ‘too risky to provide them’ thought process needs a rethink.
Geopolitics is a big part of investments – commenting during political turmoil will not damage a brand.
Investment firms spend considerable resources understanding geopolitical risk.
Analysts model scenario outcomes. Portfolio managers adjust exposures. Risk teams stress-test against tail events. This expertise is genuine and substantial. When firms don’t share any of it with the press, that knowledge stays entirely internal – useful to clients, invisible to everyone else.
The press will fill the gap regardless – investment firms are missing a golden opportunity to highlight their expertise and convictions.
The public conversation about what a geopolitical event means for markets, economies, or specific sectors gets shaped by whoever is willing to engage. Firms that stay silent concede that space by default.
There is also a straightforward matter of credibility.
An investment firm that offers clear, considered analysis during a crisis builds a reputation for intellectual genuineness. Over time, that matters – to potential clients, to competitors, and to talent who want to work somewhere that contributes meaningfully to the public discourse.
“We might get it wrong. It may damage our brand.”
This is the real issue, but it applies equally to every form of client communication. Firms already issue research notes, market outlooks, and economic forecasts to their clients and partners. The standard for press commentary isn’t certainty – it’s informed, qualified analysis.
Journalists understand that geopolitical situations are fluid. Firms can say “based on current information, the most likely market impact appears to be X, though this could change significantly if Y occurs”.
A lot of firms hide behind compliance. Compliance teams are right to flag risks, but the framing of geopolitical commentary is typically different from stock-specific recommendations.
A general view on something like “rising energy costs from a conflict might impact European equities broadly” is not the same as a specific buy or sell recommendation.
In my view, the most valuable commentaries from investment professionals tend to share certain characteristics.
The spokespeople that distinguish between short-term market reactions and longer-term structural shifts are the ones that are listened to and quoted by journalists.
One big important issue is time.
An untimely comment in a journalist’s inbox, however, is a cardinal sin for a PR. Companies need to be quick – there is no time to be dilly dallying around when planning to comment on a matter which is fast moving.
Lastly, firms also do not need to comment on everything. But they should speak when they have something substantive to add. More people may want to read it than you may think.
The UK investment industry manages a substantial share of public and private wealth. The decisions it makes, and the frameworks it uses to make them, have real consequences for millions of people. Participating thoughtfully in public discourse about the geopolitical forces that shape those decisions is not a distraction from the core business. It is part of what it means to be a serious institution in a complex world.
The reporters covering these stories are asking the right questions. Investment firms should be willing to answer them.
Robbie Lawther is an Account Director at Quill PR
The question of trust, which I wrote about in a previous blog is becoming more important by the day.
Recent analysis from two companies, Unicepta and Muck Rack, which landed in our inbox shows the extent to which external sources and narratives are driving people’s views of companies.
Unicepta found that in over 90% of its analyses1, the way in which companies are represented in AI systems is largely driven by external sources and narratives.
Similarly, Muck Rack analysed more than 1 million links from AI responses2 and found that non-paid media accounts for about 94% of links cited; the majority of which come from journalistic sources. Earned media (non-paid journalistic coverage) forms about 25% of all citations.
So naturally I wanted to ask my new best friend, ChatGPT, what it thought about all this. I asked how many of its own citations are driven by journalistic sources, and it said: “journalistic sources typically account for somewhere between ~20% and ~47% of AI citations, depending on the study, query type and methodology.”
You could surmise that this is because journalist-generated copy is trusted. Journalists – and publications’ sub-editors – are a reliable third-party voice when it comes to facts. Facts have been checked, sources verified. The element of trust is there.
This is important for any brand because people are increasingly starting to switch their search activity from traditional search engines towards AI models3 – a trend which is set to gather speed exponentially if my own search use is anything to go by. Generative Engine Optimisation (GEO) is usurping SEO when it comes to search.
Clearly this shift will have implications for companies who want to raise their visibility. Credible media coverage will be more important than ever if you want your company to be considered or even discovered by audiences.
Quill PR has been helping clients raise their profile via earned coverage for over a quarter of a century now, and we understand how positive media coverage can help businesses meet their objectives. The importance of this type of exposure looks set to grow exponentially over the coming months.
Chat GPT then helpfully offered me a ready-made quote I could use in my blog. Thanks friend!
“Roughly a quarter of AI-generated citations now come from journalistic sources, rising to nearly half for time-sensitive queries such as markets and regulation. For UK financial services firms, that reinforces a familiar truth: authoritative, earned media coverage isn’t just shaping reputation — it’s increasingly shaping how AI systems interpret credibility and surface information to investors.”
Emma Murphy is a Director at Quill PR
1. source UNICEPTA: GEO – Generative Engine Optimization for AI Search Visibility
2. source What Is AI Reading? December 2025 [Final]
3. source 37% of consumers start searches with AI instead of Google: Study
🏆We’re delighted to share that, for the third year in a row, Quill PR has been shortlisted for Communications & PR Agency of the Year 2026 at the upcoming Citywealth Brand and Marketing Awards.
This recognition means a great deal to our team and reflects the passion, commitment and expertise we bring to our work every day.
As always, we’re incredibly grateful to our fantastic clients – collaboration and support are at the heart of everything we do.
Thank you to Citywealth for the nomination, and congratulations to all the other nominees!
The low cost, transparency and liquidity of ETFs with the outperformance potential of an actively managed strategy, has led to a surge in their popularity amongst investors, leading some to realise the uncomfortable reality that the traditional investment trust model is under severe pressure from structural changes in the market.
Changing Landscape
Investment trusts once served a clear purpose. They provided access to illiquid markets, allowed patient capital deployment without redemption pressures, and offered a closed-end structure that made sense when macro-economic developments caused market volatility and could trigger devastating outflows from open-ended funds. But the competitive environment has fundamentally shifted.
The emergence of low-cost ETFs has altered the calculus dramatically. An investor can now buy broad beta for roughly 25 basis points, compared to 100 basis points or more for actively managed trusts. When a traditional trust runs 60-plus holdings, it essentially offers actively managed beta and beta can be bought far more cheaply elsewhere.
The mathematics are stark. A diversified portfolio might outperform by 50 to 100 basis points annually, but after fees, the net value proposition becomes questionable. Investors can achieve similar exposure through passive products with dramatically lower costs and perfect liquidity.
High conviction
This reality is forcing a fundamental reconceptualisation across the industry. Investment trusts that want to remain relevant are moving aggressively toward high conviction portfolios typically 30 to 40 names or fewer. This isn’t a marginal adjustment; it represents a complete rethinking of what active management means.
High conviction portfolios create genuine differentiation from passive alternatives, but they cut both ways. A concentrated portfolio that makes correct calls can significantly outperform. But mistakes show up clearly in returns.
There’s no hiding in a 70-name portfolio anymore. Every position matters, and this level of accountability, while uncomfortable, is what the market demands from active managers.
Structural Advantages and Disadvantages
The closed-end structure does provide one genuine advantage: trusts aren’t forced sellers during market stress. When market volatility spikes and sentiment turns negative, open-ended funds face redemptions that force managers to sell their best ideas at the worst prices. A trust structure can maintain conviction and wait for markets to stabilise.
This matters particularly with certain markets, like emerging markets, which are inherently cyclical and prone to sentiment-driven volatility. Being able to look through volatile periods without forced selling has value, though not enough to justify the structure alone.
However, this advantage comes with a significant cost: discounts to net asset value (NAV). When sentiment sours, the share price can trade significantly below underlying asset value.
This creates a dual-layer problem not only does the NAV need to perform, but the discount needs to narrow for share price returns to match. Open-ended funds don’t face this issue.
Specialisation as differentiation
Even within the investment trust universe, specialisation matters. Investment trusts with a broader universe compete primarily on manager skill and track record, directly competing with ETFs.
More focused sector trusts – whether on specific markets, regions or countries – compete on offering expertise and access that passive products don’t provide.
This creates a natural hierarchy. The more specialised and niche the focus, the stronger the case for the trust structure, assuming the manager delivers the promised expertise.
The broader and more benchmark-like the approach, the harder it becomes to justify the structure and fees against passive alternatives.
Future
For investment trusts to remain relevant in, several shifts are necessary:
To find out more about the Investment Trust sector, and the challenges it faces, check out the Missing Lever: A Blueprint Beyond Buybacks
Robbie Lawther and McKinley Sadler are Account Director and Account Manager at Quill PR.
But is this a good thing? The amount of consolidation and the array of acquirers have reshaped what “independent” means in financial planning. The question some ask is whether the FCA is doing enough to protect the very concept of independence that sits at the heart of consumer trust.
An Independent Financial Adviser must consider all retail investment products from the entire market. They’re supposed to be free from conflicts, unshackled from product provider incentives, working purely in the client’s interest. It’s a noble ideal.
But does it survive when small IFA practices are absorbed into large consolidator groups?
Advice consolidators are building scale. But some argue that sometimes this is at the cost of the client. Others ask whether firms that own advice companies be allowed to own an investment arm? Does this create a conflict of interest?
Now, the FCA would argue they’ve got this covered. Regulatory permissions remain. Supervision continues. Firms must still demonstrate independence in their investment selection processes. But a fair question is whether ‘box-ticking’ compliance is enough when the entire commercial infrastructure surrounding advice has fundamentally changed.
Consider what independence meant fifteen years ago: a small firm, perhaps two or three advisers, deeply embedded in their community, their reputation their most valuable asset.
Now compare that with a consolidator managing two hundred advisers across multiple brands. The incentive structures are different. The accountability is different. The relationship between adviser and client, mediated through corporate structures and centralised investment propositions, is fundamentally different.
The consolidators, naturally, push back. They argue they bring benefits: better technology, more robust compliance, access to institutional pricing, career progression for advisers. These aren’t trivial advantages. Small firms struggled with regulatory burden; many sold precisely because they couldn’t sustain the cost of compliance. Consolidation has, in some ways, professionalised the industry.
But professionalisation and independence aren’t synonymous. In fact, they may increasingly be in tension. As firms become larger and more sophisticated, they may develop preferred panel arrangements, centralised research functions, and house views on asset allocation. All perfectly legitimate. But each step moves further from the founding principle: one adviser, one client, whole of market.
What should the FCA do? At a minimum, greater transparency. If you’re seeing an adviser whose firm is owned by a consolidator, you should know it. The ownership structure, the commercial pressures, the extent to which investment selection is genuinely independent or guided by central direction – all of this should be front and centre in client communications.
More radically, perhaps it’s time to revisit what “independent” means in an era of consolidation. Should there be limits on the size of firms claiming independence? Should there be stricter separation between advice and centralised investment management?
The stakes are high. Independence isn’t just regulatory semantics – it’s the foundation of consumer trust in financial advice. If that trust erodes because independence becomes a convenient label rather than a lived reality, the damage could extend far beyond individual firms. The FCA has the tools. The question is whether they have the will.
Robbie Lawther is Account Director at Quill PR.