St. James' Place - a review…
Discussion
Somebody 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. 
Surely if he read the FT he would have the FT delivered as a subscription? 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!!!
Many years ago I had various somewhat gullible mates both working for and being clients of "City Financial Partners" which was the closest thing to a pyramid scheme I have seen. Junior investment advisors literally being given prizes like weekend breaks and watches for bringing in business, being encouraged to sell to their family and mates, indeed being asked at interview how many family and mates they'll be able to sell to. The way to "get a promotion" was to hire a new tier of advisors beneath you. Remuneration was based on a % of what you'd sold, a % of what your juniors had sold, and you passed a chunk up to your boss. Remuneration was almost entirely based on commission. The idea that they had the interests of their clients in mind when they were dealing with them was risible. Many of their staff were just as duped by the firm as their clients were. The people running the place should have been banged up.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!!!
Digga said:
Come to think of it, he may have been about to buy the Daily Sport, before I arrived.
Think you'll find it's the "Financial Sport" when bought by a financial professional.The Sport and the FT were the papers of choice in the dealing room when I were a lad. We'd have our senior economist writing a column for The Times (the "white" times) while receiving constructive feedback from the repo desk, e.g. "that's b
ks", while they passed around the Financial Sport. Happy days.Google "How deep are the problems at St James’s Place?" if this is paywalled.
https://www.ft.com/content/54a93482-2f26-4643-b4df...
https://www.ft.com/content/54a93482-2f26-4643-b4df...
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Google "How deep are the problems at St James’s Place?" if this is paywalled.
https://www.ft.com/content/54a93482-2f26-4643-b4df...
This company is the business equivalent to a stereotypical, out of touch boomer.https://www.ft.com/content/54a93482-2f26-4643-b4df...
ILikeCake said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Google "How deep are the problems at St James’s Place?" if this is paywalled.
https://www.ft.com/content/54a93482-2f26-4643-b4df...
This company is the business equivalent to a stereotypical, out of touch boomer.https://www.ft.com/content/54a93482-2f26-4643-b4df...
Unless you mean everyone is now doing this stuffremotely, on the hoof, on a 5G device using AI in which case, yes, SJP are old fashioned.
OddCat said:
In what way ? They just do plain old pensions, ISAs, Investment Bonds etc. Nothing exciting. They have around a million clients who like it that way.
There is analysis in the story comments arguing that if you exclude dividend reinvestment and the like, net inflows are in fact negative - the number of clients who like it that way is likely decreasing. https://www.ft.com/content/54a93482-2f26-4643-b4df...xeny said:
There is analysis in the story comments arguing that if you exclude dividend reinvestment and the like, net inflows are in fact negative - the number of clients who like it that way is likely decreasing. https://www.ft.com/content/54a93482-2f26-4643-b4df...
Article is firewall protected.The press hate SJP - so I'm sure the article is negative.
ATG 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!!!
Many years ago I had various somewhat gullible mates both working for and being clients of "City Financial Partners" which was the closest thing to a pyramid scheme I have seen. Junior investment advisors literally being given prizes like weekend breaks and watches for bringing in business, being encouraged to sell to their family and mates, indeed being asked at interview how many family and mates they'll be able to sell to. The way to "get a promotion" was to hire a new tier of advisors beneath you. Remuneration was based on a % of what you'd sold, a % of what your juniors had sold, and you passed a chunk up to your boss. Remuneration was almost entirely based on commission. The idea that they had the interests of their clients in mind when they were dealing with them was risible. Many of their staff were just as duped by the firm as their clients were. The people running the place should have been banged up.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!!!
What people could earn was more down to how thinly they sliced the cake of what was available. i.e. share it through a pyramid or keep it all for one place / branch / head office.
The products and charging all boiled down to the ethics of the company. I worked for a French firm that previously had a similar structure and we were encouraged to sacrifice our commissions back in to the products to make them market leading, we earned less but sold much more volume. Nothing wrong with starting with friends and family, some of my best friends have large pensions now based on what we sold them back then.
xeny said:
OddCat said:
Article is firewall protected.
The press hate SJP - so I'm sure the article is negative.
'stewie posted notes on the paywall above.The press hate SJP - so I'm sure the article is negative.
WRT the press - perhaps SJP make it easy to write negative articles?
Ken_Code said:
Anyone with any financial expertise thinks the same.
It’s an investment firm for morons who think investing there is somehow prestigious.
I don't know if that's entirely fair.It’s an investment firm for morons who think investing there is somehow prestigious.
I assumed a good chunk of their customers don't know any better as that's precisely the reason they end up at somewhere like SJP?
Fully get from this thread some others and their adverts that there's a whole "my man Charles at SJP" element to some of their customer though.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: I don't know if that's entirely fair.
I assumed a good chunk of their customers don't know any better as that's precisely the reason they end up at somewhere like SJP?
Fully get from this thread some others and their adverts that there's a whole "my man Charles at SJP" element to some of their customer though.
You’re right, most probably don’t know any better so get drawn in by the posh offices.I assumed a good chunk of their customers don't know any better as that's precisely the reason they end up at somewhere like SJP?
Fully get from this thread some others and their adverts that there's a whole "my man Charles at SJP" element to some of their customer though.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Ken_Code said:
Anyone with any financial expertise thinks the same.
It’s an investment firm for morons who think investing there is somehow prestigious.
I don't know if that's entirely fair.It’s an investment firm for morons who think investing there is somehow prestigious.
I assumed a good chunk of their customers don't know any better as that's precisely the reason they end up at somewhere like SJP?
Fully get from this thread some others and their adverts that there's a whole "my man Charles at SJP" element to some of their customer though.
Fancy office with some Bentleys and Astons out the front and drop a few wealthy client names before they let you in the door.
So, all these SJP clients would be better off with their money in a box under the bed ?
Or using some Mickey Mouse here today, gone tomorrow, indi IFA ?
Righty ho.
I don't see many stories from people who are worse off having become an SJP client. And before folks jump on here saying "oh, but had they used XYZ Advisers instead, they'd have paid fourpence ha'penny less in charges", I'm talking worse off not slightly less better off.
It's fine slagging off SJP but with the number of qualified advisers dropping like a stone, where are their one million clients going to go ?
Or using some Mickey Mouse here today, gone tomorrow, indi IFA ?
Righty ho.
I don't see many stories from people who are worse off having become an SJP client. And before folks jump on here saying "oh, but had they used XYZ Advisers instead, they'd have paid fourpence ha'penny less in charges", I'm talking worse off not slightly less better off.
It's fine slagging off SJP but with the number of qualified advisers dropping like a stone, where are their one million clients going to go ?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff