Rankings and Awards

Rankings and Awards Disclosures:

Third party rankings and recognition are based on information solely prepared and/or submitted by the adviser. Ratings should not be construed as an endorsement of the adviser by any client, nor are they a representation of any one client’s experience with the adviser. Working with a highly rated adviser does not ensure that a client will experience a higher level of performance or future success nor does it indicate that an advisor has attained a particular level of skill or ability. Rankings are provided for informational purposes only and should not be used as the sole basis for engaging PagnatoKarp for advisory services. Please refer to the more thorough disclosure and additional information about the criteria used in making these rankings via the website of the publication and/or organization granting such recognition.

Barron’s: Barron’s Top 100 Financial Advisors and Top 100 Independent Financial Advisors are based on the value of assets under management by the advisor and their teams, revenue generated for the advisor’s firms and the quality of advisors’ practices. The scoring system assigns a top score of 100 and rates the rest by comparing them with the top-ranked advisor. According to Barron’s, “The formula [used] to rank advisors has three major components: assets managed, revenue produced and quality of the advisor’s practice. Investment returns are not a component of the rankings because an advisor’s returns are dictated largely by each client’s risk tolerance. The quality-of-practice component includes an evaluation of each advisor’s regulatory record.” The rankings are based on the universe of applications submitted to Barron’s. The selection process begins with a nomination and application provided to Barron’s. Principals of PagnatoKarp self-nominated the firm and submitted quantitative and qualitative information to Barron’s as requested. Barron’s reviewed and considered this information, which resulted in the rankings.

Barron’s: Top 1,200 Financial Advisors: State-By-State – The rankings are based on data provided by over 4,000 of the nation’s most productive advisors. Factors included in the rankings: assets under management, revenue produced for the firm, regulatory record, quality of practice and philanthropic work. Investment performance isn’t an explicit component because not all advisors have audited results and because performance figures often are influenced more by clients’ risk tolerance than by an advisor’s investment-picking abilities. A ranking of “N” denotes “not ranked that year”.

Family Wealth Report: Family Office Awards – Showcasing ‘best of breed’ providers in the global private banking, wealth management and trusted advisor communities, the awards are designed to recognize companies, teams and individuals which the prestigious panel of judges deemed to have ‘demonstrated innovation and excellence during 2017’. These awards were judged solely on the basis of entrants’ submissions and their response to a number of specific questions, which had to be answered focusing on the client experience, not quantitative performance metrics.

FA Magazine: RIA Survey & Ranking – To be eligible, firms must be independent registered investment advisors and file their own ADV statement with the SEC, and provide financial planning and related services to individual clients. Firms complete and submit a survey on their firm’s behalf and each is represented in the final survey ranking. The annual ranking is based on the previous year’s assets for discretionary and nondiscretionary assets reported on Form ADV.

Financial Times: FT Top 300 RIAs – For RIAs to qualify, the Financial Times considers advisor AUM that had to be $300 million or more, asset growth, the company’s age, industry certifications of key employees, SEC compliance record and online accessibility. Neither the RIA firms nor their employees pay a fee to The Financial Times for inclusion in the FT 300.

Forbes Best-In-State Wealth Advisors, developed by SHOOK Research, is based on an algorithm of qualitative criteria, mostly gained through telephone and in-person due diligence interviews, and quantitative data. Those advisors that are considered have a minimum of seven years experience, and the algorithm weights factors like revenue trends,  assets under management, compliance records, industry experience and those that encompass best practices in their practices and approach to working with clients. Portfolio performance is not a criteria due to varying  client objectives and lack  of audited data. Neither Forbes or SHOOK receive a fee in exchange for rankings.

Forbes: Top Wealth Advisors,  developed by Shook Research, is based on overall quality of practice and an algorithm of qualitative and quantitative data received in nominations from over 11,000 professionals in the financial services industry, including banks, brokerages, custodians, insurance companies, clearing houses and registered investment advisers. Criteria includes client retention, industry experience, review of compliance records, firm nominations; as well as assets under management and revenue generated for their firms. Advisors must have a minimum of seven years of experience to be considered.

Forbes: Top Next Generation Wealth Advisors – SHOOK Research considered advisors born in 1980 or later with a minimum 4 years relevant experience. Advisors have built their own practices and lead their teams; joined teams and are viewed as future leadership; or a combination of both. Ranking algorithm is based on qualitative measures derived from telephone and in-person interviews and surveys: service models, investing process, client retention, industry experience, review of compliance records, firm nominations, etc.; and quantitative criteria, such as assets under management and revenue generated for their firms. Investment performance is not a criteria because client objectives and risk tolerances vary, and advisors rarely have audited performance reports. Rankings are based on the opinions of SHOOK Research, LLC. Neither SHOOK nor Forbes receives compensation from the advisors or their firms in exchange for placement on a ranking. For more information see www.SHOOKresearch.com.

InvestmentPal: Social Media Savvy Advisors from Barron’s Top 100 identifies 33 social media savvy financial advisors each year who made the prestigious Barron’s Top 100 Independent Advisors list.

Northern Virginia Magazine: The Top Financial Professionals listing is created from survey votes by peers in the financial industry from the following categories: broker, financial planner, insurance adviser, investment adviser and tax accountant.

ThinkAdvisor: Candidates for the Advisor Hall of Fame must have passed the rigorous screens, served a minimum of 20 years in the industry, acquired substantial assets under management, demonstrated superior client service and earned recognition from their peers and the broader community for the honor they reflect on their profession.

Virginia Business Magazine: Virginia Business Best Places to Work – Companies from across the state participate in a two-part survey process to determine the 100 Best Places to Work in Virginia. Part one examines each entrant company’s workplace policies, practices, benefits and demographics. Part two consists of an employee engagement and satisfaction survey. The combined scores from parts one and two determine the top companies. Best Companies Group manages the overall registration, evaluation and selection process.

Washingtonian: Best Financial Advisers – Survey of hundreds of area financial professionals. Fee-only advisors include certified financial planners who do not accept commissions or referral fees.

Washington Business Journal: Best Places to Work – Rankings were determined by Omaha, Nebraska-based Quantum Workplace and are based on each company’s score on an employee engagement survey. To qualify for the small company category, firms must have between 10 and 24 local employees in the Washington region. Quantum queries, evaluates and scores participating companies in categories ranging from team effectiveness, trust in senior leadership and alignment with company goals.