St. James' Place - a review…
Discussion
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:Digga said:
Press reports (both The Times and also Reuters) are a bit vague about what, exactly, all of these firms are being investigated for.
Is it WRT specific funds, or to the platform overall?
As you say, there's a lot of discussion about the fees. FWIW Mrs Digga switched to a non-advice platform and it does make you realise what the fees actually are.
AIUI in summary it seems to be people paying for advice but not getting advice i.e. they take the fees every year but don't call write or visit etc.Is it WRT specific funds, or to the platform overall?
As you say, there's a lot of discussion about the fees. FWIW Mrs Digga switched to a non-advice platform and it does make you realise what the fees actually are.
Whether the advice you get if you get it is good value for money is kind of separate.
A new document has recently been uploaded to SJPs web site which sets out clearly (probably for the first time) their fund charges. it makes for eye watering reading. these charges are the on-going rates for using their platform, 'their advice' & their charges for investing into those funds. there's also the multitude of other charges such as initial 4.5%, ludicrous bid/offer etc.
for anyone who still thinks that they provide a great service consider that annually you'd need to beat inflation then give them the %age figure for each fund before your pot even grows, and when you get to draw down it means that about HALF of the typical 3-4% annual drawdown amount is forfeited to sjp.
for anyone who still thinks that they provide a great service consider that annually you'd need to beat inflation then give them the %age figure for each fund before your pot even grows, and when you get to draw down it means that about HALF of the typical 3-4% annual drawdown amount is forfeited to sjp.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Digga said:
Press reports (both The Times and also Reuters) are a bit vague about what, exactly, all of these firms are being investigated for.
Is it WRT specific funds, or to the platform overall?
As you say, there's a lot of discussion about the fees. FWIW Mrs Digga switched to a non-advice platform and it does make you realise what the fees actually are.
AIUI in summary it seems to be people paying for advice but not getting advice i.e. they take the fees every year but don't call write or visit etc.Is it WRT specific funds, or to the platform overall?
As you say, there's a lot of discussion about the fees. FWIW Mrs Digga switched to a non-advice platform and it does make you realise what the fees actually are.
Whether the advice you get if you get it is good value for money is kind of separate.
Caddyshack said:
What is odd, if you phone SJP and ask for an advisor to visit they would be round like a shot, seems hatch to claim compo unless they can prove they had asked for contact a number of times, it’s a two way street and after a few years it would break some GDPR rules to be cold called by a new advisor.
Why would it break GDPR? It's a perfectly reasonable use of personal data for a company to call someone if they are paying that company for advice.Caddyshack said:
What is odd, if you phone SJP and ask for an advisor to visit they would be round like a shot, seems hatch to claim compo unless they can prove they had asked for contact a number of times, it’s a two way street and after a few years it would break some GDPR rules to be cold called by a new advisor.
New advisor, replacing a previous employee would not infringe any GDPR. They are merely representatives of a company the client has agreed (already) to share their data with.As you say though, there is a grey area between clients being happy not to have contact (i.e should the IFA prompt them to look at their investment portfolio as part of their remit?) and those trying to get advice or contact unsuccessfully. Hence my question, is there a minimum FSA contact requirement for adequate servicing of clients?
From personal experience I can say that the only people who consistently get wealthy from SJP are the partners themselves.
I won't go into detail but have been very close to advisors and partners in the past and the level of wealth they accrue primarily through a constant push for increasing the number of clients can be staggering. The SJP business model relies on partners growing the number of clients and keeping them sweet, rather than delivering good returns for their clients.
The lifestyles and "prizes" advisors and partners obtained for their "hard work" got my head spinning!!!
I won't go into detail but have been very close to advisors and partners in the past and the level of wealth they accrue primarily through a constant push for increasing the number of clients can be staggering. The SJP business model relies on partners growing the number of clients and keeping them sweet, rather than delivering good returns for their clients.
The lifestyles and "prizes" advisors and partners obtained for their "hard work" got my head spinning!!!
guffhoover said:
From personal experience I can say that the only people who consistently get wealthy from SJP are the partners themselves.
I won't go into detail but have been very close to advisors and partners in the past and the level of wealth they accrue primarily through a constant push for increasing the number of clients can be staggering. The SJP business model relies on partners growing the number of clients and keeping them sweet, rather than delivering good returns for their clients.
The lifestyles and "prizes" advisors and partners obtained for their "hard work" got my head spinning!!!
No advisor really delivers returns, that is the job of the fund managers.I won't go into detail but have been very close to advisors and partners in the past and the level of wealth they accrue primarily through a constant push for increasing the number of clients can be staggering. The SJP business model relies on partners growing the number of clients and keeping them sweet, rather than delivering good returns for their clients.
The lifestyles and "prizes" advisors and partners obtained for their "hard work" got my head spinning!!!
The old model used to work in FS to amass many clients, I believe now it is more about the max funds under management with the least number of clients. My friend at SJP has no more than 60 clients but has about £150million invested with those 60.
bhstewie said:
His fees over 7 years were £1,400 per annum. The total fees are roughly 2% per annum. Of that, the ongoing advice fee is 0.5% per annum - so a quarter of the total fees that would be only around £350 per year. The rest, £1,050, will be annual product and investment cost fees. hstewie said:So he must have had only £70,000 invested with SJP. He should never have been with SJP in the first place and they shouldn't have accepted him as a client.
He'd have paid no charges at all had he left his money in a cash savings account earning 0.5% per annum. Obviously we dont know the level of his net investment gains over the 7 years as that might spoil the story.....
Edited by OddCat on Sunday 17th March 17:28
Caddyshack said:
No advisor really delivers returns, that is the job of the fund managers.
The old model used to work in FS to amass many clients, I believe now it is more about the max funds under management with the least number of clients. My friend at SJP has no more than 60 clients but has about £150million invested with those 60.
Exactly. Having just 60 clients each with an average £2.5 million is perfect. You can see each one 3 or 4 times a year and do a proper job of looking after them.The old model used to work in FS to amass many clients, I believe now it is more about the max funds under management with the least number of clients. My friend at SJP has no more than 60 clients but has about £150million invested with those 60.
Digga said:
Caddyshack said:
What is odd, if you phone SJP and ask for an advisor to visit they would be round like a shot, seems hatch to claim compo unless they can prove they had asked for contact a number of times, it’s a two way street and after a few years it would break some GDPR rules to be cold called by a new advisor.
New advisor, replacing a previous employee would not infringe any GDPR. They are merely representatives of a company the client has agreed (already) to share their data with.As you say though, there is a grey area between clients being happy not to have contact (i.e should the IFA prompt them to look at their investment portfolio as part of their remit?) and those trying to get advice or contact unsuccessfully. Hence my question, is there a minimum FSA contact requirement for adequate servicing of clients?
It isn’t a god given right that the company can contact the client at any time they like after years of no contact.
okgo said:
Digga said:
My IFA is okay then. We had a nice chat in the Co Op on Saturday. Everything was as it should be - I was buying veg for the roast and some beer, whilst he was he was buying the FT so I don;t have to. 
Working out where to invest all the money he creams off you 
Caddyshack said:
guffhoover said:
From personal experience I can say that the only people who consistently get wealthy from SJP are the partners themselves.
I won't go into detail but have been very close to advisors and partners in the past and the level of wealth they accrue primarily through a constant push for increasing the number of clients can be staggering. The SJP business model relies on partners growing the number of clients and keeping them sweet, rather than delivering good returns for their clients.
The lifestyles and "prizes" advisors and partners obtained for their "hard work" got my head spinning!!!
No advisor really delivers returns, that is the job of the fund managers.I won't go into detail but have been very close to advisors and partners in the past and the level of wealth they accrue primarily through a constant push for increasing the number of clients can be staggering. The SJP business model relies on partners growing the number of clients and keeping them sweet, rather than delivering good returns for their clients.
The lifestyles and "prizes" advisors and partners obtained for their "hard work" got my head spinning!!!
The old model used to work in FS to amass many clients, I believe now it is more about the max funds under management with the least number of clients. My friend at SJP has no more than 60 clients but has about £150million invested with those 60.
If and when Companies Houses discloses turnover that will be interesting as a number of these ‘Partners’ are set up as limited companies. I have seen plenty that look healthy but you can’t tell what they take out as pay unfortunately.
Digga said:
My IFA is okay then. We had a nice chat in the Co Op on Saturday. Everything was as it should be - I was buying veg for the roast and some beer, whilst he was he was buying the FT so I don;t have to.
Surely if he read the FT he would have the FT delivered as a subscription? OddCat said:
Exactly. Having just 60 clients each with an average £2.5 million is perfect. You can see each one 3 or 4 times a year and do a proper job of looking after them.
I'm really not sure what value that would add for the client. Perhaps it makes the client feel special or feel that they're getting good service to be seen every 3 or 4 months, but if each meeting actually led to a materially important change in asset allocation, something would be badly wrong. I wouldn't want to be paying a financial advisor for a nice chat. I'd want a tangible outcome.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff