St. James' Place - a review…
Discussion
CoolHands said:
Plus there is ‘transaction charges’ which as an example on their ‘Balanced Managed’ pension fund is 0.62%
[b]I assume “annual charge of 0.5% will be charged for the ongoing advice” is in addition to the “Annual Management Charge” of 1.5% [b/] and “Charges for managing and maintaining the fund’ (which is 0.44% for ‘Balanced Managed’ retirement fund)
So 0.5% + 1.5% + 0.44% + 0.62% for the Balanced Managed retirement fund. Even with no entry or exit charges that doesn’t sound good! = 3.06%
You assume wrong. The Annual Management Charge of 1.5% is the Product Fee and Ongoing Adviser Fee combined. So the total charge is 1.5% plus whatever the fund fees are. Most clients are paying circa 1.9% all in - but it can be as high as 2.2% if the client happens to be using a mix of the more costly of the 30 odd funds.[b]I assume “annual charge of 0.5% will be charged for the ongoing advice” is in addition to the “Annual Management Charge” of 1.5% [b/] and “Charges for managing and maintaining the fund’ (which is 0.44% for ‘Balanced Managed’ retirement fund)
So 0.5% + 1.5% + 0.44% + 0.62% for the Balanced Managed retirement fund. Even with no entry or exit charges that doesn’t sound good! = 3.06%
SJP is basically a 2% per annum service. It isn't some DIY platform / passive fund combi costing 0.4%. People who would rather pay less go elsewhere. Why is this so hard to understand ?
OddCat said:
You assume wrong. The Annual Management Charge of 1.5% is the Product Fee and Ongoing Adviser Fee combined. So the total charge is 1.5% plus whatever the fund fees are. Most clients are paying circa 1.9% all in - but it can be as high as 2.2% if the client happens to be using a mix of the more costly of the 30 odd funds.
SJP is basically a 2% per annum service. It isn't some DIY platform / passive fund combi costing 0.4%. People who would rather pay less go elsewhere. Why is this so hard to understand ?
That’s interesting, the way that you know what most clients are currently paying, information only available to the firm, yet claim to have no connection with them.SJP is basically a 2% per annum service. It isn't some DIY platform / passive fund combi costing 0.4%. People who would rather pay less go elsewhere. Why is this so hard to understand ?
It’s almost as though you are being completely dishonest here.
The Telegraph ran another SJP hit piece last week around SJPs annual figures and the fact that net 'new money in' had fallen (although overall money under management had risen by £10bn due to investment gains for clients). Here were a couple of the readers comments (and, no, they aren't me)
Ken_Code said:
OddCat said:
You assume wrong. The Annual Management Charge of 1.5% is the Product Fee and Ongoing Adviser Fee combined. So the total charge is 1.5% plus whatever the fund fees are. Most clients are paying circa 1.9% all in - but it can be as high as 2.2% if the client happens to be using a mix of the more costly of the 30 odd funds.
SJP is basically a 2% per annum service. It isn't some DIY platform / passive fund combi costing 0.4%. People who would rather pay less go elsewhere. Why is this so hard to understand ?
That’s interesting, the way that you know what most clients are currently paying, information only available to the firm, yet claim to have no connection with them.SJP is basically a 2% per annum service. It isn't some DIY platform / passive fund combi costing 0.4%. People who would rather pay less go elsewhere. Why is this so hard to understand ?
It’s almost as though you are being completely dishonest here.
I'm just telling people on here how it is. I don't care if people like, or dislike SJP, nor about their reasons for doing so. I just think it's better if people make judgements based on the real facts. That's what this forum is for isn't it ?
OddCat said:
Ken. FFS. I've already stated here that I had an involvement with a new SJP partner practice on the admin / technical side. It wasn't my practice, I was just a consultant essentially. This was from 2015 to 2022. I had not had experience if SJP previous to that - but had been working with different IFA's since 2008 both directly regulated and network regulated.
I'm just telling people on here how it is. I don't care if people like, or dislike SJP, nor about their reasons for doing so. I just think it's better if people make judgements based on the real facts. That's what this forum is for isn't it ?
You’ve just said what the average customer fee is, that’s not information you would have from a historic involvement with admin.I'm just telling people on here how it is. I don't care if people like, or dislike SJP, nor about their reasons for doing so. I just think it's better if people make judgements based on the real facts. That's what this forum is for isn't it ?
You’ve tripped yourself up champ, either you lied about knowing the current average fees or lied about not being currently involved.
Ken_Code said:
OddCat said:
Ken. FFS. I've already stated here that I had an involvement with a new SJP partner practice on the admin / technical side. It wasn't my practice, I was just a consultant essentially. This was from 2015 to 2022. I had not had experience if SJP previous to that - but had been working with different IFA's since 2008 both directly regulated and network regulated.
I'm just telling people on here how it is. I don't care if people like, or dislike SJP, nor about their reasons for doing so. I just think it's better if people make judgements based on the real facts. That's what this forum is for isn't it ?
You’ve just said what the average customer fee is, that’s not information you would have from a historic involvement with adminI'm just telling people on here how it is. I don't care if people like, or dislike SJP, nor about their reasons for doing so. I just think it's better if people make judgements based on the real facts. That's what this forum is for isn't it ?
You’ve tripped yourself up champ, either you lied about knowing the current average fees or lied about not being currently involved.
Anyway, here is a screenshot (account number redacted) of the page of my own annual SJP statement for 2023 showing my charges. My ongoing advice fee is discounted to 0.25% and not the standard 0.50% (because partners can elect to charge 0.25% if they want to and as I was working there I set mine up that way).
I pay the standard 1.0% Product Fee (no discount) so, when added to the 0.25% ongoing advice fee, my Annual Management Charge is 1.25%. I then pay 0.27% fund fee (no discount). Half of my money is in a low cost Money Market fund which isn't normal and most clients would be paying more like 0.50% for the fund fees where they are fully invested. My balance is just over £170,000.
My total fees are 1.52%. Most clients would be paying 1.9% to 2.0%.
ILikeCake said:
Caddyshack said:
The claim is for servicing fees where the clients haven’t had regular reviews.
The compensation is yes.But they are still being forced to change their fee structure do to the new regs. They are not giving up a cash cow of their own accord. Ultimately their fee structure will fall foul of the regs which are designed to protect consumers. Which is why it is such a bizarre thing to defend.
ILikeCake said:
“I told a senior executive that we needed to do something about the fees, or else the regulators will do something, because they’re not clear. But I was told it was ‘completely off the table’ and that there would be no discussion on fees.”
There's a difference between "because they're not clear" and "because they're not fair". I assume this was Dame Helena Morrisey. She was absolutely right. They're not clear. But that doesn't mean they're inequitable. And she never said they were.
ILikeCake said:
Caddyshack said:
The claim is for servicing fees where the clients haven’t had regular reviews.
The compensation is yes.But they are still being forced to change their fee structure do to the new regs. They are not giving up a cash cow of their own accord. Ultimately their fee structure will fall foul of the regs which are designed to protect consumers. Which is why it is such a bizarre thing to defend.
They are reducing some fees for clients after 10 years which is probably overdue as a sort of loyalty discount.
OddCat said:
There's a difference between "because they're not clear" and "because they're not fair".
I assume this was Dame Helena Morrisey. She was absolutely right. They're not clear. But that doesn't mean they're inequitable. And she never said they were.
But if they aren't clear how is someone supposed to determine whether they're fair?I assume this was Dame Helena Morrisey. She was absolutely right. They're not clear. But that doesn't mean they're inequitable. And she never said they were.
Especially if they aren't a financial professional so wouldn't know what question(s) to ask.
Hopefully you take the point that what you call "haters" and an "SJP hit piece" might be people and the media highlighting that an expensive and often poorly performing product being less than clear and transparent about what it costs probably isn't something that's in consumers best interests.
I'm all for people getting advice if they need it but when the costs aren't made clear and your target market is people who probably don't know any better that's indefensible IMHO.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:OddCat said:
There's a difference between "because they're not clear" and "because they're not fair".
I assume this was Dame Helena Morrisey. She was absolutely right. They're not clear. But that doesn't mean they're inequitable. And she never said they were.
But if they aren't clear how is someone supposed to determine whether they're fair?I assume this was Dame Helena Morrisey. She was absolutely right. They're not clear. But that doesn't mean they're inequitable. And she never said they were.
Especially if they aren't a financial professional so wouldn't know what question(s) to ask.
Hopefully you take the point that what you call "haters" and an "SJP hit piece" might be people and the media highlighting that an expensive and often poorly performing product being less than clear and transparent about what it costs probably isn't something that's in consumers best interests.
I'm all for people getting advice if they need it but when the costs aren't made clear and your target market is people who probably don't know any better that's indefensible IMHO.
But some people on here are fundamentally misunderstanding some key things. And when I clarify I get stick. Which is just odd as I would have thought that would be useful in this debate. Oh well, that's PH all over I suppose
OddCat said:
Ken. FFS. I've already stated here that I had an involvement with a new SJP partner practice on the admin / technical side. It wasn't my practice, I was just a consultant essentially. This was from 2015 to 2022. I had not had experience if SJP previous to that - but had been working with different IFA's since 2008 both directly regulated and network regulated.
I'm just telling people on here how it is. I don't care if people like, or dislike SJP, nor about their reasons for doing so. I just think it's better if people make judgements based on the real facts. That's what this forum is for isn't it ?
The real facts are that in response to Consumer Duty SJP have had to change their entire business model, fire multiple funds/managers and set aside nearly half a billion pounds in redress to people who've paid for a service they never received. None of which would have happened voluntarily had the regulater not stepped in.I'm just telling people on here how it is. I don't care if people like, or dislike SJP, nor about their reasons for doing so. I just think it's better if people make judgements based on the real facts. That's what this forum is for isn't it ?
They used to get away with it because the government turned a blind eye. You see crumbs of why they turned a blind eye when in 2017 George Osborne was paid £40k to give a speech at the annual SJP piss up (I was there at their invite) and people like Rees Moggs "investment house" were managing funds on their behalf (his firm was promptly sacked and folded shortly after the Consumer Duty changes started hitting SJP. You could almost describe it as retaliation).
Forester1965 said:
he real facts are that in response to Consumer Duty SJP have had to change their entire business model, fire multiple funds/managers and set aside nearly half a billion pounds in redress to people who've paid for a service they never received. None of which would have happened voluntarily had the regulater not stepped in.
They used to get away with it because the government turned a blind eye. You see crumbs of why they turned a blind eye when in 2017 George Osborne was paid £40k to give a speech at the annual SJP piss up (I was there at their invite) and people like Rees Moggs "investment house" were managing funds on their behalf (his firm was promptly sacked and folded shortly after the Consumer Duty changes started hitting SJP. You could almost describe it as retaliation).
Okay, a real life example. They used to get away with it because the government turned a blind eye. You see crumbs of why they turned a blind eye when in 2017 George Osborne was paid £40k to give a speech at the annual SJP piss up (I was there at their invite) and people like Rees Moggs "investment house" were managing funds on their behalf (his firm was promptly sacked and folded shortly after the Consumer Duty changes started hitting SJP. You could almost describe it as retaliation).
In late 2017 SJP approved a DB transfer for me. Just over £200k. I doubt many places would have done this for me despite it beibg a no brainer (for reasons I won't go into). It cost them circa £4,000 in time, effort, external reports etc etc. I paid £0. Neither up front nor as a deduction from the transfer value.
As a result of gilt rates having risen, my transfer value would now be circa £130k.
By 2022, a period that included the Covid market drop, my fund had grown to over £230k after all ongoing charges. Net of charges growth circa 4% per annum. I took my 25% TFC (which was within my cumulative early withdrawal allowance so didn't trigger an early exit fee) leaving around £175,000. I've since been taking £1,000pm via drawdown and, at the same time, my fund has grown to around £180,000 so growth has exceed withdrawals. This is despite 50% being in a Money Market fund (my choice. I have another larger pension pot elsewhere with 10x the risk of this one so SJP is my 'safe pot')
My charges are 1.52% per annum which, as far as I'm concerned, isn't excessive for a fully advised drawdown arrangement. My adviser is nice enough. I declined my 'annual review' on the basis that I didn't want one. My prerogative.
Why should I be unhappy with my above arrangement ?
And how is my arrangement a breach of Consumer Duty ? And,if it isn't, maybe 95% or more of SJPs one million clients are as happy as I am and their arrangement is also within Consumer Duty ?
Forester1965 said:
Anecdote isn't a substitute for data.
Ahhh. Yes. I'm probably their only satisfied client 
I can see how my experience would be an inconvenience to the anti SJP narrative.
Funny how we don't get too many unhappy SJP clients on here though. Just a load of people who seem to have a beef with SJP without having actually been a client. Wierd really. Bit like constantly slagging off Vauxhall having never owned a Vauxhall.
OddCat said:
Yes, I do have an SJP pension (now in drawdown) which has been, and is still, superb. I know exactly what I was charged and how the charges work. Yes, I was subject to an early exit fee which has now expired. I paid zero initial fees - the whole amount transferred in was invested.
I don't expect the hard core haters on here to believe a word of this of course
What is superb about the SJP pension to you?I don't expect the hard core haters on here to believe a word of this of course
Only you later added this:
OddCat said:
Their investment fund performance hasn't been as good as it should have been (and no one said it was).
& I recall seeing several reports that agree that their performance has been pretty appalling: for example, https://portfolio-adviser.com/st-jamess-place-acco...I’m curious what makes your perspective that paying over 1.5% feel so good to you, when half your funds are in a money market fund (surely the lowest cost thing to run?). What other funds are doing so well for you there?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff