Category: UK

UK Equity

March 31st 2026

Executive Summary

In this analysis, we examine how UK equity fund positioning is distributed across the ownership spectrum — from the most widely held consensus names to the long tail of low-participation stocks.

We track both the number of companies held and how capital is allocated across different ownership buckets, highlighting how portfolios are structured and where conviction is being expressed. This includes analysing the evolution of the most crowded positions, the role of the middle ownership ranges, and the characteristics of the long tail.

We also explore how stocks move through the distribution — identifying entry and exit points across key thresholds, and highlighting cases where position sizes signal stronger conviction despite limited ownership.

How Many Companies Do Active UK Investors Own?
The number of companies held by active UK funds peaked at just over 1,200 in 2021, before trending steadily lower to ~1,030 today. Breadth is clearly contracting, with portfolios becoming more selective over time.

Beneath the surface, positioning remains tilted toward a small group of dominant sectors, with a clear gap between the largest allocations and the long tail of smaller exposures.  

Ownership Breadth
Ownership breadth across UK portfolios is highly skewed. The majority of stocks are held by only a small fraction of funds, with 737 companies owned by fewer than 5% of investors (~71% of the universe). From there, the opportunity set narrows rapidly, with relatively few names achieving broad ownership.

This skew in stock count is less extreme when viewed through portfolio weights. While the long tail of stocks (held by a small minority of funds) dominates in number, it represents a more modest share of capital, reflecting smaller position sizes and more selective conviction.  At the top end, ownership becomes much more concentrated. A small group of widely held stocks accounts for a disproportionately large share of capital, with the most crowded names (held by a majority of funds) commanding meaningfully larger weights within portfolios.

Concentration Rising: Shift Toward Consensus
Between 2012 and 2021, capital had been moving away from the most widely held names, with the 50–100% bucket gradually losing share. That dynamic flipped in 2021 (post COVID?) — with weights in the most crowded cohort surging back toward ~40%, reclaiming clear dominance within portfolios.

This has come at the expense of the long tail. The least-owned names (0–15%) have steadily faded in importance, with their share of capital continuing to drift lower, reinforcing the move away from more differentiated positions.

The middle buckets tell a more muted story. While they participated in the earlier broadening of portfolios, they have not seen the same degree of re-acceleration, leaving the recent shift driven primarily by a renewed focus on the most widely owned stocks.

Stocks held by more than 50% of funds

Crowding at the Top: More Names, More Weight
The number of stocks held by more than 50% of UK funds has pushed higher, now sitting close to the top end of the historical range at 19 names. What was once a more limited group of consensus positions has broadened into a larger cohort of widely owned stocks.

At the same time, the capital allocated to these names has rebuilt steadily. After compressing into 2020, weights have climbed back, with the most crowded stocks now accounting for well over a third of portfolios — and continuing to edge higher.

Ownership Trends within the 50% Club
The current >50% cohort has been built relatively recently. While a handful of names have consistently sat in this group, much of today’s cohort has only crossed the threshold over the past few years, pointing to a broadening of consensus rather than a static leadership group.

What stands out is the path into the top tier. Ownership tends to build gradually at first, but once names move through the ~30–40% range, participation often accelerates. From there, several stocks transition quickly into widely held positions, with ownership continuing to climb toward 60–70%+.

The weight profile is more uneven. While inclusion in the >50% club brings higher capital allocation, the dispersion across names remains wide — with a smaller subset of stocks accounting for a disproportionate share of the cohort’s total weight.

The 30% – 50% Cohort

The 30–50% ownership bucket remains relatively contained, with the number of names typically ranging from the low-20s to low-30s. In total, only 84 companies have ever passed through this range since 2012, reinforcing how selective this part of the distribution is.

In weight terms, this group built into the late 2010s, peaking in the low-20% range, before easing back. More recently, its share has stabilised, but without reclaiming prior highs, suggesting less conviction being expressed in this part of the distribution.

30–50% Cohort: Snapshot & Turnover Dynamics
Current positioning within the 30–50% ownership range comprises ~30 companies. The cohort spans a mix of UK large caps, with representation across financials, industrials, consumer names and defensives. Position sizes remain relatively contained, with most holdings clustered below ~1% of average fund weight, and only a small number moving modestly above that level.

Turnover within the bucket is visible on both sides. A number of names have dropped below 30%, including WPP, Ashtead, Taylor Wimpey and Intertek. At the same time, new entrants have moved up through the threshold, led by Auto Trader and Rolls-Royce, with RS Group and Rotork also crossing into the cohort.

Diverging Paths Within the Middle Cohort
Ownership trajectories across the current constituents are varied.  Some names have moved within relatively stable ranges over time, with participation fluctuating but remaining broadly within the 30–50% band. This is visible in names such as Legal & General, Compass Group and Sage.

Others show more sustained upward moves. Rentokil, Howden Joinery Group and SEGRO have all seen ownership build over time, pushing toward the upper end of the range.

In contrast, several stocks are below prior highs. Prudential, Imperial Brands and British American Tobacco have all seen participation ease from earlier peaks.

The 15% – 30% Cohort

The 15–30% ownership bucket includes 85 companies, making it a meaningful layer within the distribution. The cohort spans a broad mix of UK names across sectors. Position sizes remain modest, with most holdings sitting well below 50bps of average fund weight.

Turnover around the thresholds is active. A number of names have moved up into the bucket, including Telecom Plus, Rosebank Industries and Rathbones, alongside LondonMetric Property and Hill & Smith. At the same time, several stocks have dropped below 15%, including Just Group, QinetiQ and Future, as well as Bytes Technology and Close Brothers.

The 0% – 15% Cohort

The Long Tail
The 0–15% ownership bucket contains 896 companies, forming by far the largest segment of the universe. It represents the long tail of positioning, with a wide dispersion of names held by only a small subset of funds.

Sectorally, the cohort is broad but tilted toward Financials (167 names), Industrials (138) and Information Technology (132), with Consumer Discretionary also well represented (110).  At the top end of the range, a number of names sit just below the 15% threshold, including Unite Group, Pets at Home and Kingfisher.

Early-Stage Conviction: Candidates for Broader Adoption
Comparing fund ownership against position size highlights a subset of names held with relatively high conviction despite limited participation. While most stocks in this bucket carry small weights, a number stand out with above-average allocations.
Names such as Antofagasta and Wise show higher average weights despite being held by a relatively small share of funds. Others including Pennon, Ferguson and Chesnara also sit above the broader cluster, indicating stronger conviction among existing holders.
Further along the spectrum, several names combine higher ownership (within the bucket) with still meaningful position sizes. JTC, Ferguson and Fevertree Drinks sit closer to the upper end of the range, while also appearing among the largest individual fund positions.
This is reinforced in the top holdings data, where stocks like Antofagasta, Close Brothers and Volution feature prominently — names that are not widely owned, but where participating funds are allocating capital in size.

Conclusion

UK portfolios are becoming more focused, with conviction increasingly expressed in a broader set of consensus names.

The structure of ownership remains highly skewed, but the balance of capital has shifted upward — away from the long tail and toward the most widely held stocks. Entry into the top ownership cohort appears to follow a defined path, with participation accelerating once names reach critical mass, reinforcing crowding at the top.

Further down, the middle of the distribution remains relatively small and selective, while the long tail continues to account for the majority of names but a limited share of capital. Together, this highlights a structure where portfolios are concentrated in a smaller group of widely held positions, with the remainder spread across a large number of lower-weight holdings.

UK Active Equity

Active UK Funds: Performance & Attribution 2025

January 13th 2026

Key Data Points

• Active UK equity funds posted strong absolute returns in 2025, averaging 17.4 percent, but lagged the FTSE All Share index by over six percentage points, with only one in four funds outperforming the benchmark.
• Performance was driven by Financials, particularly Banks and Brokers, while underweights to a handful of mega-cap stocks — notably Rolls-Royce and HSBC — significantly hurt relative returns.
• Stock selection across most sectors detracted from performance, with Industrials, Information Technology, and Consumer Discretionary the most challenging areas for active managers.
• 2025 marked the worst year on record for relative performance, with the average fund underperforming the benchmark ETF by 6.6 percentage points — bringing the 10-year underperformance gap to nearly 29 percent.
• The FTSE All Share’s high and persistent concentration raises questions about its suitability as a benchmark, as passive exposure now mimics the concentration levels of high-conviction active portfolios, but without the intellectual framework or rationale behind those weights.

Strong returns, but a benchmark hard to beat
On the face of it, 2025 was a good year for active UK funds. Average returns came in at 17.4 percent, led by the Value cohort which averaged 25.2 percent, but weighed down by lacklustre returns from Growth (9.9 percent) and Aggressive Growth (4.6 percent). There were stellar performances from individual strategies, with Temple Bar Investment Trust, Artemis SmartGARP, and Shires Income leading a group of seven funds that posted returns in excess of 30 percent for the year.

All this would paint a positive picture, were it not for the FTSE All Share index return of 23.7 percent — more than six percentage points ahead of the average active fund. Only 24.5 percent of funds managed to outperform the benchmark over the year.

Breaking down the 2025 return: Financials drive performance
The 17.4 percent average return for active UK funds in 2025 was underpinned by strong contributions from the Financials sector, particularly Banks and Brokers. Financials alone added 8.9 percentage points to the annual return, with smaller positive contributions from Health Care, Industrials, and Materials. In contrast, both Communication Services and Information Technology detracted from performance over the year.

At the industry level, Banks and Brokers were supported by strong showings from Aerospace & Defence, Healthcare & Biotech, and Insurance. Meanwhile, the catch-all ‘Other Services’ category was the single largest detractor, taking 0.83 percentage points off the annual return.

Stock-Level Influence: The Magnificent Seven?
The chart below highlights the top stock-level contributors and detractors for UK active managers in 2025. On the positive side, a group of seven companies stood out, collectively contributing 8.3 percentage points to the average fund return. This group was led by large, widely held positions such as HSBC and AstraZeneca, alongside smaller holdings that delivered outsized gains, including Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group, and NatWest Group.

On the negative side, Diageo, RELX, and the London Stock Exchange were the most significant detractors. Together, they reduced average active performance by 1.3 percentage points over the year.

Performance Attribution – Where Did Active Managers Win and Lose?
At the sector level, there were few areas of outperformance for active UK funds in 2025. Stock selection was a drag across most sectors, with the largest source of underperformance coming from Industrials. This was compounded by poorly performing overweight positions in Information Technology and Consumer Discretionary.

There was some solace in the form of underweights to weaker areas of the market. Notably, active managers benefited from limited exposure to Energy, Consumer Staples, and the Multi-Sector product group — the latter primarily made up of Investment Trusts, which are typically underrepresented in actively managed portfolios.

Stock Attribution: Underweights Cause Pain
UK active managers are typically positioned with significant underweights in the largest constituents of the FTSE All Share index. For example, the top six index weights — AstraZeneca, HSBC, Shell, Unilever, Rolls-Royce, and British American Tobacco — make up 31.3 percent of the FTSE All Share, but account for just 16.7 percent of the average UK active fund. As a result, the performance of these names plays an outsized role in driving relative returns.

Unfortunately for active investors, four of these six — Rolls-Royce, HSBC, British American Tobacco, and AstraZeneca — delivered returns well ahead of the benchmark. Underexposure to this group alone cost the average fund 2.9 percentage points in lost performance, with a further 32 basis points lost due to cash drag. While underweights in Diageo, Unilever, 3i Group, and Shell provided some relief, and smaller active overweights helped at the margin, they were not enough to offset the impact of missing out on the top performers.

Long-Term Performance: Worst Year on Record for Active
The charts below track the long-term performance of the average active portfolio of funds versus the SPDRs FTSE All Share ETF.  Whilst 2025 was the third best year in absolute terms, the -6.6% underperformance was the worst on record.  Indeed, over 10 years, the active fund portfolio has underperformed the FTAL ETF by 28.9%, with the ETF sitting just below the top 20th percentile when placed aside it’s active peers.

The FTSE All Share Index:  Fit for Purpose as a Benchmark?
As active UK equity funds continue to close at a pace unmatched in any of our other global fund universes, it’s tempting to question whether the model is broken. But before throwing in the towel on active, perhaps it’s time to ask a different question: is the benchmark itself still fit for purpose?

While recent commentary has focused on rising concentration in the US market, the FTSE All Share has quietly remained the more concentrated of the two. As the left-hand chart shows, the top 10 names have consistently represented a larger share of the index than in the S&P 500 — currently standing at 41.2 percent.

The second chart puts this into context. Despite comprising hundreds of stocks, the FTSE All Share sits in the middle of the pack when ranked by top-10 concentration across UK equity portfolios — and that includes active funds with far fewer holdings and deliberate stock selection frameworks. The SPDR FTSE UK All Share ETF — the passive proxy — has a top-10 exposure similar to many high-conviction, concentrated active funds, but without the intellectual framework or rationale behind those weights.

It’s easy to frame the debate as “active vs passive,” especially in a year where the benchmark has delivered such strong returns. But that often misses the deeper issue: what exactly are passive investors buying into? And is it fair to judge active managers against a benchmark whose construction is now so heavily skewed toward a small number of mega-cap names?

Performance & Attribution Report

Click the link opposite for full charts and data detailing the drivers of 2025 performance, along with a review of 3-, 5-, and 10-year results across the active UK peer group.

UK Equity Funds

UK Consumer Discretionary Positioning: A Consensus Overweight

December 18th 2025

Executive Summary

UK Consumer Discretionary has emerged as a standout conviction trade among active UK equity funds. While average sector weights have remained stable over the past decade, the FTSE All Share benchmark has steadily de-rated the sector—driving a record active overweight of +4.28%. This positioning is not only elevated but also widely held, with 85% of managers overweight, making Discretionary one of the most consensus overweights heading into 2026.

Peer comparisons reinforce this point: Consumer Discretionary now ranks as the fourth-largest sector allocation, yet tops the leaderboard in terms of relative overweight versus benchmark. At the stock level, ownership runs deep, with key names like Whitbread, Compass, and Next widely held. Recent trends show rising interest in names such as Wickes, Carnival, and Trainline, while others like Taylor Wimpey and Dowlais are seeing ownership momentum reverse.

Click on the Report Link below for access to the latest UK Consumer Discretionary Market Intelligence Report.

The distribution of fund weights further underscores the sector’s strategic importance. Most allocations cluster between 6% and 13%, and only a small minority—just 15% of funds—sit below benchmark, highlighting how rare a bearish stance on the sector has become.

UK Consumer Discretionary Evolution:  Breaking from the Benchmark
Allocations to Consumer Discretionary stocks have remained remarkably stable over the past decade, with the average fund weight currently at 10.34%—well within a tight 10-year range of 9% to 11% (chart 7). However, this apparent stability masks a sharp divergence from the benchmark: the FTSE All Share’s Discretionary weighting has declined to decade lows (chart 10), resulting in a record active overweight of +4.28% (chart 13). This elevated relative positioning is near unanimous, with 85% of active managers holding an overweight—highlighting a clear consensus in favour of the sector (chart 14).

Peer Positioning:  THE Conviction Overweight
Consumer Discretionary currently ranks as the fourth-largest sector allocation among UK active funds—trailing only Financials, and sitting on par with exposures to Health Care and Consumer Staples (chart 1). However, what truly distinguishes it is not the size of the allocation, but the scale of the active overweight. Among all sectors, Consumer Discretionary stands out as the most pronounced conviction play, surpassing even Technology and Industrials in relative positioning. These overweight bets are key in offsetting structural underweights elsewhere, particularly in Multi-Sector products (notably investment trusts), as well as in Energy and Consumer Staples (charts 4 & 5).

Stock-Level Positioning
Ownership within the Consumer Discretionary sector runs deep, with eight companies held by more than 30% of UK active managers, led by Compass Group, Next plc, and Whitbread. Despite Compass Group’s broad ownership, its average active weight sits -0.41% below its FTSE All Share index weight. However, solid overweights in Games Workshop, Burberry Group, and Dunelm more than offset this deficit.

Stock Level Analysis:  Interesting Trends in Ownership
Chart 109 highlights the three stocks with the largest gains in ownership over the past six months, with Whitbread and Wickes Group both reaching all-time highs, and Carnival showing signs of a sustained recovery. In contrast, Chart 110 captures reversals in momentum for Taylor Wimpey, Barratt Developments, Redrow, and Dowlais Group. Chart 111 identifies five ‘rising stars’ in the sector—stocks held by fewer than 20% of UK active funds but currently at peak ownership levels—led by Trainline PLC, Wickes Group, and Hollywood Bowl.

Fund-Level Positioning
At the fund level, most Consumer Discretionary allocations fall between 6% and 13% (Chart 31), with a moderate tail extending to a high of 28.5%. Only 8% of managers hold a weight of 5% or less (Chart 33), underscoring the sector’s role as a strategic allocation for the majority of UK active funds. With just 15% of managers underweight relative to the benchmark, taking a negative stance on Discretionary remains a clear non-consensus position heading into 2026.

AFI – Market Intelligence Report:  UK Consumer Discretionary

Please click on the link opposite for the full positioning report on the UK Discretionary sector.  It contains 133 charts, including fund-level detail at the sector, industry and stock level, breakdowns by Style, Market Cap Focus and Benchmark Independence, together with a full gap analysis on past holders and potential buyers in the sector.  

 

 

UK Active Fund Performance & Attribution, Q3 2025

Active UK equity managers have once again found themselves grappling with a tough market backdrop. Despite an average return of 11.75% across the peer group through Q3, the benchmark has proven an even tougher competitor. The SPDR FTSE All Share ETF delivered a 15.9% gain year-to-date—comfortably ahead of nearly three-quarters of the 215 funds in our universe.

For more analysis, data or information on active investor positioning in your market, please get in touch with me on steven.holden@copleyfundresearch.com

  

229 Active UK Funds, AUM $172bn

BAE Systems plc

Positioning Rebounds, Underweight Widens

BAE Systems has staged a sharp rebound in ownership, rising to 36.7% of UK funds — its highest in over two years — with average weights also climbing. Yet positioning remains well below historical peaks, leaving UK managers -1.27% underweight versus the benchmark. As the dominant aerospace and defence holding, BAE outpaces Rolls-Royce, QinetiQ and Senior, supported mainly by GARP, Growth, and Income strategies. With defence back at the forefront of global agendas, its underweight status may prove harder for active managers to sustain.

For more analysis, data or information on active investor positioning in your market, please get in touch with me on steven.holden@copleyfundresearch.com