St James’s Place.

[ZealAndArdour]

Hi,

Just wondering about this company. I understand they’re quite legit and well known.

My dad (not vulnerable, self employed, works still, only vulnerability is my siblings death a few years ago and he lives alone) is very shrewd and has always looked after his assets, saved very hard and tried to make sure we’d all be okay in the future. He’s been using them for several years for various things; consolidating pensions, setting up an asset preservation trust, etc.

But he seems to be in quite regular contact with his advisor (I’ve met the guy to sign paperwork and have some things explained to me, he seems nice enough) and has also received a lot of referred business from my dad making recommendations to friends, etc. The advisor is now taking my dad and some of his pals on quite fancy days out to thank them for the referred custom and just seems to still be very much involved in everything, I thought the things he’d been engaged for were sort of contact-Intense to begin with while they were set up and then might just be yearly reviews of everything. But my dad will still get calls from this guy quite frequently, and he’ll say “oh I’m not answering that, it’s Charles, he probably wants me to invest some more money, he can wait”.

I’m just wondering if this is a normal level of continuous involvement with the financial advisor, I know my dad has good pensions and a respectable portfolio of assets, but unless I’m totally in the dark I don’t think we’re talking millionaire status.

Could there be anything shady going on? Is the financial advisor meant to be in contact this much and taking them out?

My dad would also like me to meet with him to discuss my pensions and assets and tbh I just find the smarming all a bit much, and this level of contact too intense to maintain.

Thanks.

Sorry, what are dog funds?

Also, SJP is the only company to have repeatedly called me (and loads of colleagues) at my desk to wheedle me into meeting an advisor until I told them in no uncertain terms to take me off their list or risk breaching GDPR.

No other reputable wealth manager has ever done that. They’re only ever so slightly better than used car sales people.

I wouldn't touch them - they are legit but expensive and their funds aren't great. A lot of claims companies sniffing around them. I would steer my parents away 100%.

@Porridgeislife

you are clearly a child with short polyester trousers.

Erm, what?

If you as I suspect an SJP partner or employee you aren't changing many minds I don't think!

I work in the industry and come across loads of people who have been burned by SJP - the charges are high and depending on what you are investing in there are also sometimes exit fees so you get locked in (it's a sliding scale, tapering over 6 years from 6% to leave in yr 1 to 1% in year 6). The funds do not perform well on the whole and the the advisors are heavily incentivised to sell products which make them a lot of money and aren't in the best interest of the client.

Here is an extensive article on the issues with SJP from independent financial adviser Yodelar.

https://www.yodelar.com/insights/st-jamess-place-review

One of the main issues with restricted firms advice firms like SJP is that investors have less protection than across multiple fund managers. If invested in an ISA or SIPP investors are only protected to £85,000 under the Government Financial Compensation scheme. If in a personal pension this is more.

When I say one of the main issues, thats after the poor performance over the last 10 years, high charges and them being the only regulated firm in the UK that is allowed to continue with exit charges.

The regulator said no more exit charges, SJP said the 6% exit is an upfront advice fee, but on their annual statement it reads early exit penalty.

Money is a funny thing, people ignore the facts and buy off people for the wrong reasons. The consumer duty push now by the regulator has already caused issues for SJP, if I was invested with them I would be worried.

A good IFA will tell you invest over multiple brands, L&G, Baillie Gifford, Jupiter, JP Morgan, Aviva etc etc. Investors should have no more than 10% of their money/pension with SJP, and not more than £85,000.

I know quite a few who’ve gone to work there… they are all people who’ve been fired from investment banking. They spend their time trying to lean on ex-colleagues to invest all their pensions and funds with them.

They’re now banned from our building.

To be fair to SJP, which gets very bad press on MN, I have a relative who uses them. Minimal contact with the fa but he has given them advice whenever asked. My relative pulled all his money out to invest in a home earlier this year, with no hefty exit fees, so not sure why people go on about this.

@TotalOverhaul

its mainly small IFAs who have a go and there a are lots of IFAs. They are simply bitter that SJP are the most successful wealth manager and they are annoyed they can’t stop it.

@BrokerG I did ask whether you are, or ever have been, personally affiliated with SJP, since you are such an outlier with your glowing reviews of them.

If anyone was sat on the fence you certainly aren't helping!

If SJP are so amazing why do they ask stupid questions about pension schemes that should be common knowledge. Such as is a public sector scheme a defined benefit scheme

@Sensible1 Thank you for posting the article. very interesting.

It mentions in the article about the 85k guarantee. Does that apply to pensions as well, so if you transfer a pot of £100k, for example, you’re only guaranteed up to £85k?

I'd be wary as neither the article nor sensible1 seem to understand how FSCS protection regarding funds works. If it was cash holdings it would be different and likewise if you were investing in specialised products. Investing in Mutual Funds with multiple underlying assets, the protection isn't going to make much difference

How do you define success? They manage to cream off the top more than others through their eye watering fees but they don't get better returns.

I find your decisions incomprehensible given the facts (some mentioned on this thread) but as long as you're happy, that's fine with me.

If your a client of SJP rather than a partner or employee I'll eat my shoe.

Wouldn't touch them with a bargepole

@HauntedPencil

whether I am or not, there are 1 million clients with £157 billion of funds entrusted to SJP to manage and from what history tells us, it only going to increase. I’m afraid you’re wasting your efforts.

What does history tell us pray?

I think it is interesting that you will not say whether you are a partner (or shareholder) of SJP.

I am entirely neutral regarding what happens to SJP. It will not benefit me or harm me in any way if SJP keeps growing, or starts to shrink.

But, if I can help some of the people who read Mumsnet to understand that they can save on fees and probably receive higher net returns on their investments by going elsewhere, than my post will have served a purpose.

But, if I can help some of the people who read Mumsnet to understand that they can save on fees and probably receive higher net returns on their investments by going elsewhere, than my post will have served a purpose

Same. It's one of the most satisfying things about my job.

There's some excellent resources online that compare fees across the investment providers. If you then look at the fund performance against the peer group on Trustnet, you've covered the basics.

No personal interest in any of the providers but I hate seeing people ripped off because they don't know the options available. The DIY investment platforms (or even robo advisers) have shaken up the traditional wealth management industry for the better. There's so much free support and advice available, including for non-customers.

What history tells us? That's very SJP bullshittery.

It's like they've just been on the induction course and swallowed the manual