St. James' Place - a review…
Discussion
Mr Pointy said:
Chipper said:
Sharing positive news amidst the negativity about SJP. In mid-2022, we decided to invest in a corporate investment ( already had pensions and ISA’s ) due to low business bank interest rates. Following their advice, we opened a corporate investment alongside ISAs and pensions for my wife and me. After charges, here are our 2023 returns:
- ISA: Both wife and I returned +9.4%
- Pensions: Wife +8.9%, Me +5.4%
- Corporate Investment: +9%
Content with the outcomes.
You might want to look at this thread then:- ISA: Both wife and I returned +9.4%
- Pensions: Wife +8.9%, Me +5.4%
- Corporate Investment: +9%
Content with the outcomes.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Even a Vanguard Global Tracker managed 14%. Excessive fees require excessive performance.
Personally, I've significantly invested in Tesla throughout 2023, currently enjoying an almost 21% increase. However, I wouldn't want to rely solely on Tesla for our pension. Considering a diverse portfolio and the inclusion of safer funds with slower growth, I found a 9% return for the Corporate investment to be more than satisfactory, especially compared to what the bank originally was offering, which was 0%, though recently they have offered, I think, 3.49%, but locked for three months at a time.
I recently spoke to three friends, two of whom have IFAs, and none achieved anywhere near 14%. one did attain an 10.8% return on his pension.
Edited by Chipper on Sunday 7th January 13:20
Chipper said:
I found a 9% return for the Corporate investment to be more than satisfactory, especially compared to what the bank originally was offering, which was 0%, though recently they have offered, I think, 3.49%, but locked for three months at a time.
If your benchmark for satisfactory performance is anything above 0% then I’m sure you’ll be very happy with SJP or any other wealth managers long term. Without wanting to sound patronising, most investments aren’t benchmarked against 0% to measure their success.
If the SJP one has zero risk and you’re guaranteed the return, then it’s a fair comparison.
Edit: for fairness the 15.4% that the FTSE All World returned in 2023 or the 17.0% the MSCI world returned may not be fair benchmarks either given they are 100% equity and the SJP investment sounds as if it isn’t
Edited by simon800 on Sunday 7th January 13:56
Chipper what are you invested in?
I tend to use a the FTSE Global All Cap as a guide on what to expect if you're invested 100% in equities.
Then for a rough "finger in the air" for anything that's a mix of equities and bonds I'd probably either look at the closest Vanguard LifeStrategy fund or work out what a comparable mix of the FTSE Global All Cap and a Global Bond Index fund would give you.
I tend to use a the FTSE Global All Cap as a guide on what to expect if you're invested 100% in equities.
Then for a rough "finger in the air" for anything that's a mix of equities and bonds I'd probably either look at the closest Vanguard LifeStrategy fund or work out what a comparable mix of the FTSE Global All Cap and a Global Bond Index fund would give you.
simon800 said:
If your benchmark for satisfactory performance is anything above 0% then I’m sure you’ll be very happy with SJP or any other wealth managers long term.
Without wanting to sound patronising, most investments aren’t benchmarked against 0% to measure their success.
If the SJP one has zero risk and you’re guaranteed the return, then it’s a fair comparison.
Edit: for fairness the 15.4% that the FTSE All World returned in 2023 or the 17.0% the MSCI world returned may not be fair benchmarks either given they are 100% equity and the SJP investment sounds as if it isn’t
When I was exploring options to safeguard our company funds from inflation, none of the banks offered significant interest on business accounts. SJP established the CI, and I'm delighted with the 9% returns.A Google search on fund performance revealed SJP holding its ground. I'm not here to defend them, but personally, I haven't encountered anyone achieving an average of 14%+ across their pension portfolio, not just a select few funds, in 2023. This might be due to my friends and work colleagues have poor IFA or simply the Pistonheads community has a higher percentage of individuals outperforming the average. Without wanting to sound patronising, most investments aren’t benchmarked against 0% to measure their success.
If the SJP one has zero risk and you’re guaranteed the return, then it’s a fair comparison.
Edit: for fairness the 15.4% that the FTSE All World returned in 2023 or the 17.0% the MSCI world returned may not be fair benchmarks either given they are 100% equity and the SJP investment sounds as if it isn’t
Edited by simon800 on Sunday 7th January 13:56
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: 14% was what a cheap dumb passive global tracker would have given you last year assuming you wanted to be invested in 100% equities.
Of course it won't do that every year but that's where the whole active fund v taking what the market gives you debate comes from
It’s actually 15.4% or 17% depending on whether it’s the all world or MSCI world Of course it won't do that every year but that's where the whole active fund v taking what the market gives you debate comes from
Lots on the press recently about SJP, new regs, and the amount they've set aside for compensation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/st-jamess-place/
Anyone had any luck getting a refund? My wife has had an account for 20 years and in that time has never had a phone call, meeting, or advice of any kind.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/st-jamess-place/
Anyone had any luck getting a refund? My wife has had an account for 20 years and in that time has never had a phone call, meeting, or advice of any kind.
ILikeCake said:
Lots on the press recently about SJP, new regs, and the amount they've set aside for compensation.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/st-jamess-place/
Anyone had any luck getting a refund? My wife has had an account for 20 years and in that time has never had a phone call, meeting, or advice of any kind.
You should be able to tell from her more recent annual statements whether she is paying an annual advice fee as part of her overall fees.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/st-jamess-place/
Anyone had any luck getting a refund? My wife has had an account for 20 years and in that time has never had a phone call, meeting, or advice of any kind.
20 years with no contact is odd. Have you moved and not told her adviser where you are ?
What type of product does she have and what is the approximate value ? Some products have no ongoing advice fees.
If you have been paying ongoing advice fees, and haven't had any contact from the adviser (especially if you have been unable to make contact with him) then there is a hood chance that you will qualify for a refund. You just need to contact SJP Head Office and lodge claim.
Quilter now too it seems.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/uks-quilt...
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/uks-quilt...
Quilter said:
Where our regular adviser oversight has determined that a customer may not have received the servicing they have paid for, or where we have received complaints from customers regarding ongoing servicing, this has been investigated, and, where appropriate, remediation has been undertaken and recognised as a normal business as usual expense.
Subsequent to the year-end, on 15 February 2024, the FCA wrote to around 20 advice firms, including Quilter, requesting information regarding ongoing servicing. Consistent with our focus on delivering good customer outcomes, we are commencing a review of historical data and practices across our network to determine what, if any, further action may be required. This may lead to remedial costs but it is too early to quantify.
Subsequent to the year-end, on 15 February 2024, the FCA wrote to around 20 advice firms, including Quilter, requesting information regarding ongoing servicing. Consistent with our focus on delivering good customer outcomes, we are commencing a review of historical data and practices across our network to determine what, if any, further action may be required. This may lead to remedial costs but it is too early to quantify.
Digga said:
Quilter now too it seems.
https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/uks-quilt...
Easy to see why never any recommendations for others on here as " they " all seem as bad as each other be it actual charges or lack of advice being charged for !https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/uks-quilt...
Quilter said:
Where our regular adviser oversight has determined that a customer may not have received the servicing they have paid for, or where we have received complaints from customers regarding ongoing servicing, this has been investigated, and, where appropriate, remediation has been undertaken and recognised as a normal business as usual expense.
Subsequent to the year-end, on 15 February 2024, the FCA wrote to around 20 advice firms, including Quilter, requesting information regarding ongoing servicing. Consistent with our focus on delivering good customer outcomes, we are commencing a review of historical data and practices across our network to determine what, if any, further action may be required. This may lead to remedial costs but it is too early to quantify.
Subsequent to the year-end, on 15 February 2024, the FCA wrote to around 20 advice firms, including Quilter, requesting information regarding ongoing servicing. Consistent with our focus on delivering good customer outcomes, we are commencing a review of historical data and practices across our network to determine what, if any, further action may be required. This may lead to remedial costs but it is too early to quantify.
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.
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.
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.
As I understand it the investigations are more about the annual ongoing individual advisor / Partners charges pertaining to advice and the quality thereof /frequency /if at all and not about the actual Fund performance ie a relatively smaller proportion of the overall fees that are often mentioned as being between 1.50% and 2.00% in total.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.
But even if this had been negotiated down from their average ( which I doubt occurred that much ) it will still be between 0.25% and 0.50% pa which is clearly " expensive " compared with platforms ( albeit strictly non advice of course ) but when no actual advice obtained for that 0..25% -0.50% annually and in some cases many years , you can see why there might be a problem !
alscar 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.
As I understand it the investigations are more about the annual ongoing individual advisor / Partners charges pertaining to advice and the quality thereof /frequency /if at all and not about the actual Fund performance ie a relatively smaller proportion of the overall fees that are often mentioned as being between 1.50% and 2.00% in total.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.
But even if this had been negotiated down from their average ( which I doubt occurred that much ) it will still be between 0.25% and 0.50% pa which is clearly " expensive " compared with platforms ( albeit strictly non advice of course ) but when no actual advice obtained for that 0..25% -0.50% annually and in some cases many years , you can see why there might be a problem !
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.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff