St. James' Place - a review…
Discussion
Caddyshack said:
mikef said:
OddCat said:
greygoose said:
OddCat said:
So the main issue for the SJP haters on here is that SJP are more expensive than similar services elsewhere?
Do you work for them? mikef said:
Caddyshack said:
mikef said:
OddCat said:
greygoose said:
OddCat said:
So the main issue for the SJP haters on here is that SJP are more expensive than similar services elsewhere?
Do you work for them? BTW, I have no reason to be evasive, I have been supportive of advice but both sides of the fence re SJP (just isolate my posts on this thread to see that) personally I find the SJP model a joke as they are often “fur coat and no knickers“ as I pointed out a couple of pages ago with their “I normally only deal with the Uber rich but I will do you a favour mentality”. And products that are hard to understand what you are paying went out in the 90’s yet they still sell them.
I have never been paid anything by SJP
Edited by Caddyshack on Saturday 11th May 06:07
Sheepshanks said:
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:funinhounslow said:
Like I suggested earlier why not just get a couple of boring Vanguard index trackers?
To be fair this is very easy to say when you know what a Vanguard index tracker is and where to start.I would imagine a lot of SJP customers probably need schemes which minimise tax as they’ll have amounts beyond pensions and ISAs and they’d need to minimise IHT liability.
It seems an odd company to choose as a hill to die on.
They've set aside as good as half a £billion to compensate people who were charged for advice they didn't receive. They're not setting that money aside due to suddenly finding a moral compass. They're setting aside because they will have taken legal advice and know they have behaved poorly.
It's brave of some posters to defend the fee structure when they are being forced to change it due to the new consumer duty regs designed to protect retail customers. But if that's not enough, take the words of a SJP director:
“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.”
They've set aside as good as half a £billion to compensate people who were charged for advice they didn't receive. They're not setting that money aside due to suddenly finding a moral compass. They're setting aside because they will have taken legal advice and know they have behaved poorly.
It's brave of some posters to defend the fee structure when they are being forced to change it due to the new consumer duty regs designed to protect retail customers. But if that's not enough, take the words of a SJP director:
“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.”
funinhounslow said:
Fair point but if that Reddit post is typical they are also rinsing punters with modest requirements who don’t know any better.
For anyone in doubt on the difference fees make here are a few examples.https://larrybates.ca/t-rex-score/
One is someone paying 2% fees one is someone paying 1% and one is someone paying 0.2% fees.
Might give an idea of the spectrum of options around fees and the impact they make on how much of any returns you get to keep.
It might sound obvious but remember that money you don't get to keep is money your advisor gets to keep.
I've based this off 7% returns so if you're invested in something defensive or cautious that's only returning 3-4% to start with and you're paying 2% in fees you may not want to run the numbers.
mikef said:
OddCat said:
greygoose said:
OddCat said:
So the main issue for the SJP haters on here is that SJP are more expensive than similar services elsewhere?
Do you work for them? There are some very odd ideas on here about what happens at SJP. Some of this stuff might have happened 25+ years ago.
xeny said:
OddCat said:
What actually happens is that products with no physical initial fee and, as a consequence, with an exit fee instead (eg a pension)
From https://www.sjp.co.uk/individuals/charges/pensions..."Product charges
There will be an initial product charge of 1.5% of your investment."
"Advice charges
We charge for our initial advice and for our ongoing advice. 4.5% of your initial investment will be used to pay for initial advice"
Presumably fees =/= charges, and hence the document at this link is clear, unambiguous and easy to understand?
It is badly written, but SJP have always been appalling at explaining this as their marketing people are semi retarded, but it is saying that the early withdrawal fee is the equivalent of and is not in addition to.
- I added this bit in so we know what they are saying when they say "This" which they should do but, like I say, their marketing people are special needs.
Ken_Code said:
Caddyshack said:
He explained that the exit fees are expressed as entry fees, that does ring a bell when I challenged a friend on the charges. I think they do only apply if you withdraw money early.
The whole idea of exit fees is ludicrous.If you were investing in an infrastructure project or a start-up they may make sense but given that investments are mainly into liquid stocks there is no justification for it.
SJPs exit rather than entrance fee is brilliant. But because they have to describe it in terms of an equivalent entrance fee, and because they are incapable of explaining that this is notional clearly, everyone thinks they charge both. I can see why people think that. I really can.
They are abandoning this soon in favour of a simple initial fee. A bite out of the money up front (or a separate fee paid by the investor). They are only doing this because people (and the press) will get it. As things stand, SJP take unnecessary stick for something which looks wuerd but is actually absolutely above board. So instead of being radical, they will now just fall into line with everyone else.
Because they currently absorb the initial fees themselves, and don't physically charge them they don't start booking profits for a client until year 7. The Product fee of 1% is not applied to incomefor the first six years because it is simply reimbursing the set up fees. This is why there is a six year exit fee because SJP rely on the investor paying the 1% Product Fee each year for six years to break even.
I have no vested interest here. I have no reason to lie (thanks to those suggesting that
) 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
OddCat said:
".....together with a charge which will apply to any amount withdrawn over the first six years on a reducing scale (6% in year 1 reducing to 1% in year 6). This (the early withdrawal charge*) is equivalent to the Advice and Product charges above and not in addition to them"
It is badly written, but SJP have always been appalling at explaining this as their marketing people are semi retarded, but it is saying that the early withdrawal fee is the equivalent of and is not in addition to.
A cynic might suggest that any lack of clarity in t&cs is entirely deliberate…It is badly written, but SJP have always been appalling at explaining this as their marketing people are semi retarded, but it is saying that the early withdrawal fee is the equivalent of and is not in addition to.
Explaining charges is a regulatory obligation so I’m not sure it would be up to “marketing people” to draft them.
I wasn’t really aware of this outfit and what I’ve learned over the past couple of days is eye opening.
In fact strip away the displays of wealth and success and I’m struggling to see the difference between them and “Investor Center”…
https://youtu.be/nJzo5TDfamk?si=GfuDjCzXEAA4ngDr
Caddyshack said:
The claim is for servicing fees where the clients haven’t had regular reviews.
Yes, and claiming that charging people fees for a service not provided is “brilliant” is a ludicrous argument.I really am amazed that people are trying to defend this firm, they are like the Halfords of finance.
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.
Ken_Code said:
Caddyshack said:
The claim is for servicing fees where the clients haven’t had regular reviews.
Yes, and claiming that charging people fees for a service not provided is “brilliant” is a ludicrous argument.I really am amazed that people are trying to defend this firm, they are like the Halfords of finance.
Re the 0.5% ongoing advice fees being charged where the client wasn't receiving any service from an adviser I agree 100% that this was unacceptable. As the SJP Partner Practices effectively operate as a franchise,SJP are NOT hands on, nor prescriptive, about the relationship between the Advisers and their clients. They assumed in good faith that the practices were doing their job properly and took the 0.5% from the clients and handed it to the practices accordingly. That's a mistake they won't be making going forward as they have since introduced a Big Brother CRM system to monitor this.
Plus there is ‘transaction charges’ which as an example on their ‘Balanced Managed’ pension fund is 0.62%
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% 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%
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% 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%
Ken_Code said:
Yes, and claiming that charging people fees for a service not provided is “brilliant” is a ludicrous argument.
I really am amazed that people are trying to defend this firm, they are like the Halfords of finance.
Can't wait for OddCat to claim Enron were misunderstood, or Equitable Life did actually provide a 'brilliant' pension. I really am amazed that people are trying to defend this firm, they are like the Halfords of finance.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff