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.”
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
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.
Currently the news is awash with untruthful exploits where misinformation, exaggeration, downright lies and cover-ups have been exposed. While the truth might have been painful or embarrassing originally, the fallout from exposed lies is always 100 times worse.
Image courtesy of Pexels
The Observer’s recent outing of the alleged untruths in the book ‘The Salt Path’ was staggering to read, and made headlines across multiple media outlets, thanks in part to the premiere of the film based on the book. The protagonists, who had built a sympathetic and loyal following of readers due to their resilience in the face of adversity, were alleged to not only be untruthful, but in the author’s case potentially criminal.
Another key story last week was the publication of the report into the Horizon Post Office scandal, which outlined some of the awful impacts the scandal had had on those involved, including the suicide of at least 13 people. This intensely sad part of this story is just the tip of an iceberg of tragedy which has affected so many, and still lingers on, with hesitation and obfuscation surrounding payouts to victims.
Again, this story started with something going wrong (at a corporate level this time), but instead of facing the embarrassment of a mistake, taking the financial hit and taking responsibility, it was decided to not only lie about the nature of the problems, but also to lay the blame at the feet of innocent people. As the report pointed out, the bosses at the Post Office “maintained the fiction that its data was always accurate.”
The price of what would have been a costly mistake several years ago is now exponentially higher, but moreover, lives have been ruined and lost.
When lies are told, or covered up, the repercussions can be terrible, financially and on people’s lives. And deservedly, reputations can be completely destroyed.
Recent exposure by the Press Gazette into fake commentators and fake case studies underlines the importance of integrity and trust in the PR and media industry too.
Reputations are hard-won and easily lost, and when all is said and done an organisation’s or an individual’s reputation is one of its key assets, with the potential to make or break. Integrity is critical.
Emma Murphy is a Director at Quill PR.