St. James' Place - a review…
Discussion
OddCat said:
Would you rather have a crap adviser with access to the whole of market or a superb adviser restricted in some areas to a single provider ?
One will sell you all the wrong stuff from whichever provider has taken him out to lunch that week and the other will sell you all the right stuff but the products might not be the best available.
IFA is a bit of a joke. I worked for a while for an IFA who had a 'panel' of pre approved providers for each product area. Which was because it is simply impossible to understand the minutiae of every product from every provider to consider, and then discount, all but one.
You have a point in that there are good and bad IFAs as there are good and bad SJP advisors.One will sell you all the wrong stuff from whichever provider has taken him out to lunch that week and the other will sell you all the right stuff but the products might not be the best available.
IFA is a bit of a joke. I worked for a while for an IFA who had a 'panel' of pre approved providers for each product area. Which was because it is simply impossible to understand the minutiae of every product from every provider to consider, and then discount, all but one.
A bad advisor is a bad advisor wether or not they have access to whole of market.
I picked up on the mention of IFAs because it is an important distinction.
OddCat said:
Would you rather have a crap adviser with access to the whole of market or a superb adviser restricted in some areas to a single provider ?
One will sell you all the wrong stuff from whichever provider has taken him out to lunch that week and the other will sell you all the right stuff but the products might not be the best available.
IFA is a bit of a joke. I worked for a while for an IFA who had a 'panel' of pre approved providers for each product area. Which was because it is simply impossible to understand the minutiae of every product from every provider to consider, and then discount, all but one.
IFA can be in that regard but what they can't do, even when they tie to a single provider, is take large clips from the back end which is the true advantage of only selling 'house' instruments and I'd wager why SJP's revenues did well while the funds did notOne will sell you all the wrong stuff from whichever provider has taken him out to lunch that week and the other will sell you all the right stuff but the products might not be the best available.
IFA is a bit of a joke. I worked for a while for an IFA who had a 'panel' of pre approved providers for each product area. Which was because it is simply impossible to understand the minutiae of every product from every provider to consider, and then discount, all but one.
Oddcat's right about IFAs.
To be independent you have to fulfill 2 criteria;
1) Whole of market on the products you can sell (this is the obvious one); and
2) Can sell the whole spectrum of product types (the lesser known one).
A financial adviser can fall foul of the regs by being whole of market on the products they do sell but not wanting to get involved in certain types of product.
On the other hand, many advisers hold themselves up as independent when in reality all they do is pick from a small panel. This can be because it suits the client or because it suits them.
It would be naiave to think every time you buy a product from an IFA they have studiously searches the market for the best product for you. More likely their software has spat out your risk/loss profile and the spinning circle has stopped on product 'X'.
To be independent you have to fulfill 2 criteria;
1) Whole of market on the products you can sell (this is the obvious one); and
2) Can sell the whole spectrum of product types (the lesser known one).
A financial adviser can fall foul of the regs by being whole of market on the products they do sell but not wanting to get involved in certain types of product.
On the other hand, many advisers hold themselves up as independent when in reality all they do is pick from a small panel. This can be because it suits the client or because it suits them.
It would be naiave to think every time you buy a product from an IFA they have studiously searches the market for the best product for you. More likely their software has spat out your risk/loss profile and the spinning circle has stopped on product 'X'.
OddCat said:
Would you rather have a crap adviser with access to the whole of market or a superb adviser restricted in some areas to a single provider ?
One will sell you all the wrong stuff from whichever provider has taken him out to lunch that week and the other will sell you all the right stuff but the products might not be the best available.
IFA is a bit of a joke. I worked for a while for an IFA who had a 'panel' of pre approved providers for each product area. Which was because it is simply impossible to understand the minutiae of every product from every provider to consider, and then discount, all but one.
Fancy another go at this one?One will sell you all the wrong stuff from whichever provider has taken him out to lunch that week and the other will sell you all the right stuff but the products might not be the best available.
IFA is a bit of a joke. I worked for a while for an IFA who had a 'panel' of pre approved providers for each product area. Which was because it is simply impossible to understand the minutiae of every product from every provider to consider, and then discount, all but one.
mikeiow said:
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?
mikeiow said:
Fancy another go at this one?
Only you later added this:
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?
I should perhaps have said 'the performance of some of their funds us poor' not ' their fund performance (all of it) is poor'. I understand that around 20% of the money invested with SJP is invested in poorly performing funds. £30 billion out of £170 billion. The rest are middling or good. So the returns an individual receives are directly relative to what mix of funds they are invested in. I'm not suggesting my own experience, and returns, are not good. Just that some people's might be.mikeiow said:
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?
Regarding why I think it is superb. Well, they did a DB transfer for me with peachy timing, the investment performance has been acceptable (to me), the transition into drawdown was seamless, they pay me on time and I have no issues. Perhaps 'superb' is a bit strong when talking about a pension. Any pension. But so much stuff in finance gets f
ked up that when something works it's a relief.My charges include 1% Product Fee and 0.25% Ongoing Adviser Fee. So it is 1.25% regardless of where it is invested (Money Market fund or Vietnamese Pot Belly Pig fund). Half of my money is in Money Market but the rest is in a wierd risky mix of equity funds in Japan, UK, some USA and some Europe. Plus a few odd bits. This was self select. SJP don't like me doing this. I honestly don't really look at it because the whole thing represents only around 20% of my total investable wealth. It is still growing despite me taking out £1,000 per month.
Yes, I could move it to a cheaper drawdown contract but I simply can't be bothered. The fees are just over £2k per annum. Maybe I could get that down to £1k per annum (0.75%). Maybe that would all go horribly wrong. Who knows.
I'm not wedded to SJP. I haven't given them my other 80% wealth to manage. For example, I have 2 x as much in a DIY SIPP as I have in SJP.
I just know that a lot of what is said on here about them is BS. But I think I'm flogging a dead horse so will step away from this thread now.
OddCat said:
Regarding why I think it is superb. Well, they did a DB transfer for me with peachy timing, the investment performance has been acceptable (to me), the transition into drawdown was seamless, they pay me on time and I have no issues. Perhaps 'superb' is a bit strong when talking about a pension. Any pension. But so much stuff in finance gets fked up that when something works it's a relief.
They didn't advise you on the timing, it's just circumstantial that it's worked out well in your favour. SJP take a more relaxed approach to green lighting DB transfers than some firms because a yes means more AUM. Any provider can move you into drawdown and pay on time, it's basic stuff. ked up that when something works it's a relief.OddCat said:
mikeiow said:
Fancy another go at this one?
Only you later added this:
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?
I should perhaps have said 'the performance of some of their funds us poor' not ' their fund performance (all of it) is poor'. I understand that around 20% of the money invested with SJP is invested in poorly performing funds. £30 billion out of £170 billion. The rest are middling or good. So the returns an individual receives are directly relative to what mix of funds they are invested in. I'm not suggesting my own experience, and returns, are not good. Just that some people's might be.mikeiow said:
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?
Regarding why I think it is superb. Well, they did a DB transfer for me with peachy timing, the investment performance has been acceptable (to me), the transition into drawdown was seamless, they pay me on time and I have no issues. Perhaps 'superb' is a bit strong when talking about a pension. Any pension. But so much stuff in finance gets f
ked up that when something works it's a relief.My charges include 1% Product Fee and 0.25% Ongoing Adviser Fee. So it is 1.25% regardless of where it is invested (Money Market fund or Vietnamese Pot Belly Pig fund). Half of my money is in Money Market but the rest is in a wierd risky mix of equity funds in Japan, UK, some USA and some Europe. Plus a few odd bits. This was self select. SJP don't like me doing this. I honestly don't really look at it because the whole thing represents only around 20% of my total investable wealth. It is still growing despite me taking out £1,000 per month.
Yes, I could move it to a cheaper drawdown contract but I simply can't be bothered. The fees are just over £2k per annum. Maybe I could get that down to £1k per annum (0.75%). Maybe that would all go horribly wrong. Who knows.
I'm not wedded to SJP. I haven't given them my other 80% wealth to manage. For example, I have 2 x as much in a DIY SIPP as I have in SJP.
I just know that a lot of what is said on here about them is BS. But I think I'm flogging a dead horse so will step away from this thread now.
TL:DR
Warren Buffett had a bet that a S&P500 index tracker would, over 10 years, beat the financial advisers advice.
It seems he has won.
https://tinyurl.com/4f4b42pm
Warren Buffett had a bet that a S&P500 index tracker would, over 10 years, beat the financial advisers advice.
It seems he has won.
https://tinyurl.com/4f4b42pm
Alickadoo said:
TL:DR
Warren Buffett had a bet that a S&P500 index tracker would, over 10 years, beat the financial advisers advice.
It seems he has won.
https://tinyurl.com/4f4b42pm
I don't know how the comparison would work, but look at the S&P 500 over the previous 10yrs - say 2000 to 2010. It went down.Warren Buffett had a bet that a S&P500 index tracker would, over 10 years, beat the financial advisers advice.
It seems he has won.
https://tinyurl.com/4f4b42pm
OddCat said:
My charges include 1% Product Fee and 0.25% Ongoing Adviser Fee. So it is 1.25% regardless of where it is invested (Money Market fund or Vietnamese Pot Belly Pig fund). Half of my money is in Money Market but the rest is in a wierd risky mix of equity funds in Japan, UK, some USA and some Europe. Plus a few odd bits. This was self select. SJP don't like me doing this. I honestly don't really look at it because the whole thing represents only around 20% of my total investable wealth. It is still growing despite me taking out £1,000 per month.
Yes, I could move it to a cheaper drawdown contract but I simply can't be bothered. The fees are just over £2k per annum. Maybe I could get down to £1k per annum (0.75%).
I know the author of this post has “bowed out” of this thread but there are a couple of things that “jumped out” at me and was wondering if my understanding was correct..,Yes, I could move it to a cheaper drawdown contract but I simply can't be bothered. The fees are just over £2k per annum. Maybe I could get down to £1k per annum (0.75%).
I can’t see the logic in paying an ongoing “advisor fee” and selecting investment funds myself. Why not just go straight to Vanguard or whoever and save £££
Puzzled by the insouciance that they are likely being overcharged £1000/year in fees. Ok so it’s not a life changing amount but a grand is still a grand and worth the effort of a few hours’ admin surely…?!
OddCat said:
It is still growing despite me taking out £1,000 per month.
That's not necessarily an indicative statement; you don't say how long for. In terms of numbers, you could have £10m in there and be drawing £1k pcm, and you'd certainly hope it would still be growing, or you could have £10k in there in which case your growth would be very good.To be clear - I'm not asking you to post numbers, just pointing that out.
GT3Manthey said:
OddCat said:
mikeiow said:
Fancy another go at this one?
Only you later added this:
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?
I should perhaps have said 'the performance of some of their funds us poor' not ' their fund performance (all of it) is poor'. I understand that around 20% of the money invested with SJP is invested in poorly performing funds. £30 billion out of £170 billion. The rest are middling or good. So the returns an individual receives are directly relative to what mix of funds they are invested in. I'm not suggesting my own experience, and returns, are not good. Just that some people's might be.mikeiow said:
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?
Regarding why I think it is superb. Well, they did a DB transfer for me with peachy timing, the investment performance has been acceptable (to me), the transition into drawdown was seamless, they pay me on time and I have no issues. Perhaps 'superb' is a bit strong when talking about a pension. Any pension. But so much stuff in finance gets f
ked up that when something works it's a relief.My charges include 1% Product Fee and 0.25% Ongoing Adviser Fee. So it is 1.25% regardless of where it is invested (Money Market fund or Vietnamese Pot Belly Pig fund). Half of my money is in Money Market but the rest is in a wierd risky mix of equity funds in Japan, UK, some USA and some Europe. Plus a few odd bits. This was self select. SJP don't like me doing this. I honestly don't really look at it because the whole thing represents only around 20% of my total investable wealth. It is still growing despite me taking out £1,000 per month.
Yes, I could move it to a cheaper drawdown contract but I simply can't be bothered. The fees are just over £2k per annum. Maybe I could get that down to £1k per annum (0.75%). Maybe that would all go horribly wrong. Who knows.
I'm not wedded to SJP. I haven't given them my other 80% wealth to manage. For example, I have 2 x as much in a DIY SIPP as I have in SJP.
I just know that a lot of what is said on here about them is BS. But I think I'm flogging a dead horse so will step away from this thread now.
you’re the only other vocal defender I’ve seen of them on this forum, but also a customer if memory serves. Ask yourselves this, if they’re so great, why has he only got 20% of his money in there?
.
Forester1965 said:
Oddcat's right about IFAs.
To be independent you have to fulfill 2 criteria;
1) Whole of market on the products you can sell (this is the obvious one); and
2) Can sell the whole spectrum of product types (the lesser known one).
A financial adviser can fall foul of the regs by being whole of market on the products they do sell but not wanting to get involved in certain types of product.
On the other hand, many advisers hold themselves up as independent when in reality all they do is pick from a small panel. This can be because it suits the client or because it suits them.
It would be naiave to think every time you buy a product from an IFA they have studiously searches the market for the best product for you. More likely their software has spat out your risk/loss profile and the spinning circle has stopped on product 'X'.
The key problem is that they're described as "financial advisors", but as per your description, they're selling investments. Selling investments isn't advice and clearly creates a fundamental, inescapable conflict of interest with the client. Such conflicts of interest are normal between any buyer and seller, and that isn't a problem so long as everyone's genuine position is transparently obvious to all parties. But the title "IFA" tends to be actively misleading.To be independent you have to fulfill 2 criteria;
1) Whole of market on the products you can sell (this is the obvious one); and
2) Can sell the whole spectrum of product types (the lesser known one).
A financial adviser can fall foul of the regs by being whole of market on the products they do sell but not wanting to get involved in certain types of product.
On the other hand, many advisers hold themselves up as independent when in reality all they do is pick from a small panel. This can be because it suits the client or because it suits them.
It would be naiave to think every time you buy a product from an IFA they have studiously searches the market for the best product for you. More likely their software has spat out your risk/loss profile and the spinning circle has stopped on product 'X'.
Independent advisors should advise only. They shouldn't received any remuneration whatsoever, in any form, not one red cent, as a consequence of their clients buying investment products. If they want to get paid for selling stuff, that's fine, just don't pretend they're offering "independent advice".
ATG said:
Forester1965 said:
Oddcat's right about IFAs.
To be independent you have to fulfill 2 criteria;
1) Whole of market on the products you can sell (this is the obvious one); and
2) Can sell the whole spectrum of product types (the lesser known one).
A financial adviser can fall foul of the regs by being whole of market on the products they do sell but not wanting to get involved in certain types of product.
On the other hand, many advisers hold themselves up as independent when in reality all they do is pick from a small panel. This can be because it suits the client or because it suits them.
It would be naiave to think every time you buy a product from an IFA they have studiously searches the market for the best product for you. More likely their software has spat out your risk/loss profile and the spinning circle has stopped on product 'X'.
The key problem is that they're described as "financial advisors", but as per your description, they're selling investments. Selling investments isn't advice and clearly creates a fundamental, inescapable conflict of interest with the client. Such conflicts of interest are normal between any buyer and seller, and that isn't a problem so long as everyone's genuine position is transparently obvious to all parties. But the title "IFA" tends to be actively misleading.To be independent you have to fulfill 2 criteria;
1) Whole of market on the products you can sell (this is the obvious one); and
2) Can sell the whole spectrum of product types (the lesser known one).
A financial adviser can fall foul of the regs by being whole of market on the products they do sell but not wanting to get involved in certain types of product.
On the other hand, many advisers hold themselves up as independent when in reality all they do is pick from a small panel. This can be because it suits the client or because it suits them.
It would be naiave to think every time you buy a product from an IFA they have studiously searches the market for the best product for you. More likely their software has spat out your risk/loss profile and the spinning circle has stopped on product 'X'.
Independent advisors should advise only. They shouldn't received any remuneration whatsoever, in any form, not one red cent, as a consequence of their clients buying investment products. If they want to get paid for selling stuff, that's fine, just don't pretend they're offering "independent advice".
I understand your explanation and independent could mean that in most other arenas but not for IFA.
They can still give very good advice though, advice can be about forecasting cash flow, understanding tax, best product wrappers, duration etc…it isn’t all about flogging a product.
ATG said:
The key problem is that they're described as "financial advisors", but as per your description, they're selling investments. Selling investments isn't advice and clearly creates a fundamental, inescapable conflict of interest with the client. Such conflicts of interest are normal between any buyer and seller, and that isn't a problem so long as everyone's genuine position is transparently obvious to all parties. But the title "IFA" tends to be actively misleading.
Independent advisors should advise only. They shouldn't received any remuneration whatsoever, in any form, not one red cent, as a consequence of their clients buying investment products. If they want to get paid for selling stuff, that's fine, just don't pretend they're offering "independent advice".
In the good old days it was pretty much all about the kickback and for the bulk of financial advisors, the sort that won business by offering a free petrol station sandwich on a plate at a golf course while wearing a tie for a school they didn't go to and speaking with an accent they weren't born with. It was a struggle to get any product shifted in volume through the IFA network without factoring in a large enough set of kickbacks that came out of the target clients' AUM. The FA also had to pay out to the solicitor or accountant that had fed them the lead. Independent advisors should advise only. They shouldn't received any remuneration whatsoever, in any form, not one red cent, as a consequence of their clients buying investment products. If they want to get paid for selling stuff, that's fine, just don't pretend they're offering "independent advice".
And where the money wasn't going in to products but equities and gilts there was the comm churn. Discretionary management was even worse with preferred clients having bad trades booked to mug client accounts.
The big clear out of these practices certainly helped but what we saw over the previous decade with the army of vultures that descended upon the final salary market the commission and kickback cowboys were still out there. It was a bonanza that the door to door Solar chaps could only dream of but having not invested in elocution lessons they were stuck with £5k clips of cash from the 25% tax free winnings of the two up, two down. Meanwhile, the FA could take clips not just from the remaining 75% but rinse and repeat every year and all they had to do was target the chaps in cul de sacs and barely detached homes who wanted to buy into what they believed to be a higher station.
That's why you gave your firm a name taken from a London address or the landed classes. That's the first hook as the target client base is drawn to names that can be repeated to others they wish to project over. Then comes the free petrol station sandwich. It does need to be cut to quarters and put on a plate but half sized sandwiches are catnip to the cul de sac ponce. They do need to be lobbed at the punter at a suitable location. You need to be quite clever about the location. It needs to be the sort of place that the person wouldn't normally go to but at the same time their peer group will have heard of. It also needs a particular type of car parking to work best. Enough space for those who believe they have superior cars to park and be seen but also where others can park more discreetly. Then there's the service. There's an art to this too. You can save some money using foreign labour but what really works best is paying for ex public school students. The targets can't resist the luxury of being served by someone who speaks the kind of King's English they've dreamt for years of being associated with.
Now as a vendor, while it remains pretty easy to hook and haul the punters to an abattoir the modern issue is the fees. Post the regulatory change just living off the basic fees isn't big business and to be honest it's why most good advisors aren't actually that wealthy at all. An individual can only look after a limited number of clients properly and when charging a fixed fee or fair % once the regs, rent, insurance and staff are paid there is honestly not a lot left for a conventional, competent IFA or wealth advisor.
Charging above average can sometimes work as certain consumers are convinced more is better and others will willingly pay higher sums so long as everyone else knows that firm is renowned for charging a premium. Call it the M&S effect.
But if you own the financial instruments then all sorts of other revenue opportunities open up. These will be a drain on the product performance but bolster the bottom line considerably and will never appear as a revenue that the salesman wants a cut of or any other introducer.
Something people ought to be aware of is that this whole model has been turbocharged and stuck on acid and meth by the digital wealth industry. It is huge from slippage on fractional share execution, scalping forex crosses to the listing of house products on 'recognised' but barely so exchanges to make them wrapable but simultaneously preventing anyone from being able to see inside.
Just be wary of fancy names, trendy names and structures that are made to sound complicated because none of this is remotely complicated and tone who has earned the money to be a viable client easily has the brains to understand how it works.
And if fancying a free petrol station sandwich at a nice location then always arrive in the crappiest wagon you can get your hands on and park it right at the front so that they know you're the real playa. And don't ever wear a man bangle as this robs them of vital sight like when Arnold managed to hide from the Predator.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff