St. James's Place Share Discussion Threads

[dexdringle] 19/4/2024 09:37

They should be borrowing to do buy backs at this price not selling new shares !

[porsche1945] 19/4/2024 08:25

Get ready for dilution, capital raise coming, target price 2.80. Its exit from ftse 100 won’t help.

[action] 17/4/2024 12:43

Exd on 25.04.24.

[mdchand] 17/4/2024 11:53

This issue here is not the fees, nor even the ability of the client to fully understand the mechanics of any investment (which for an english premier league footballer is a pretty low bar). It's simply whether SJP can show that the client was fully aware of the fees and how they were charged (ie loaded into the plan that amortised out over 6 years). I suspect simply sending the client an illustration (which is never read in my experience) showing how these initial fees would apply in the face of early redemption was ever explained to the client.

SJP will argue that the client had all the information they needed to make an informed decision, but I wonder if the FOS will accept that argument or argue (rightly or wrongly) that the client didn't understand the charges and the onus was on SJP to explain the changes.

If it's the latter, SJP are in big trouble as it opens up the floodgates to every Bond / Pension that has ever been sold.

[the millipede] 17/4/2024 10:16

Jak, FWIW I think a more relevant line of enquiry is to ask how much of SJP’s cash has been spent so far this year on refunding charges and fees to complaining clients. And how much of the provision do you think will be used for future complaints.

[dexdringle] 17/4/2024 09:25

jakleeds, digging out two year old articles. That's a pretty desperate attempt.

If you have 1 million clients and 1% complain that's 10,000 complaints. Even if half of those are valid Thats 5,000 complaints that might hit the press.

In any event, here's a view of the same case. The SJP adviser sold his client an Octopus EIS scheme investment.

[the millipede] 17/4/2024 08:26

Very weird. And very sad. EIS schemes are rarely suitable.

Seems to be advice given by someone acting independently, not for SJP?

[tim 3] 16/4/2024 23:26

Hmm something does not sound right about that story.

[jakleeds] 16/4/2024 22:52

The storm won’t pass . This is worse than HBOS.

One of their players was exposed - twice - in 2019, in the Times. And then again in 2022 . And they defended him. He’s still trading, living life as a millionaire. Wow.

[muffster] 16/4/2024 17:35

I'd venture that your porsche has fallen more in real terms.Don't be an idiot. This storm will pass.

[muffster] 16/4/2024 13:18

Dex has it again.

[jgoldby] 16/4/2024 10:55

I don’t think clients can be expected to take responsibility for charges when there is sufficient evidence that Saint James‘s place advisers managers and even board members didn’t understand the charges

[tim 3] 16/4/2024 09:44

I think customers need to take some responsibility for understanding the charges.If you're not happy or don't understand it don't proceed.The charges were made very clear to me but not how they were implemented.

[dexdringle] 16/4/2024 09:27

JGoldby:

1. The additional cost isn't 0.6% per year. It's roughly half that. Simply check out the ongoing total fee difference between a pension (with no upfront fees) and and ISA (with upfront fees). The charge differential is in the Product Fee. The standard Product Fee is 1% and this includes the 'no upfront fee' loading. The Product Fee for an ISA is something like 0.7% or maybe even 0.6% with no loading to offset zero initial fee charged.

2. The charges from year 7 onwards are the same as for years 1 to 6. The client can move away at the end of year 6 with no penalties if they have a problem with that.

3. As an SJP adviser you know you could have waived most of the initial fees if you wanted to - and your client would have got a lower ongoing fee rate from day one. Then you don't have to worry about "year 7 onwards". Bottom line, you can't have your upfront fee from thin air without the client paying for it one way or another.

4. How do you think SJP should have organised their zero fee upfront model ? How would that even be possible without an overall fee loading and an exit fee to stop people immediately moving away after SJP had, say, done all the hard work on a multi pension consolidation/ DB transfer but hadn't been paid ?

5. Initial fees are going to have to be charged somewhere in the mix. Either up front or ongoing.

6. SJP field management are overpaid fly boy monkeys. There was no point in you trying to get sense out of them. You needed to talk to the backroom tech geeks.

7. You still haven't detailed the specifics of your gripes around the 'buyout' you decided, of your own volition, to do....

[the millipede] 16/4/2024 09:20

“Yes but SJP ‘guarantees217; the suitability of the advice given by its so-called partners.”

Thank you Jak, for correcting my error.

[the millipede] 16/4/2024 07:55

Without seeing the suitability report it is hard to know.

But if the investor planned to live abroad later in life, in a low tax jurisdiction, this investment could have been quite a good piece of tax planning. He could take tax deferred income now - up to 5% a year for 20 years - then pay all the income tax later based on wherever he was living. (Eg Bahamas = 0%, Barbados 0%, Jersey 20% etc).

It should be possible to structure it so investment and advice fees pale into insignificance against the tax saved. Whether that is what happened is another story!

I also would hope, given the very particular circumstances in which this bond might be advantageous, that there is some detailed documentation about why it was ever bought.

[muffster] 16/4/2024 07:12

Shouldn't he then go after his car leasing company, as he will be paying an extra charge, whilst never having to pay an initial fee for the car.Either an initial fee, thereby reducing your invested capital or an elevated ongoing fee, with 100% invested

[jgoldby] 16/4/2024 01:25

So the football story is interesting, the player may have paid standard fees of 6% deferred over the first 6 years with no change in fees in year 7. He may have paid more as the bond might have been off shore or even a specialist structure.

The fee will have been paid to SJP and he’s claiming against the wrong people especially as SJP provide the partners PI cover.

To get to £750,000 he’s likely to be claiming for the impact of the fees in terms of loss of growth, potentially he’s also claiming for the Tax lock which makes bonds very difficult to move especially if a trust structure was used.

I met with a chap called Frank Gorrie in September 2023 to discuss my concerns about over charging in year 7 onwards and considering he was the chief sales manager for the north of England all he could manage was to produce a leaflet and not engage in any way with the concern.

Knowing the way St James Place pitch the fees it’s easy to see how the client could have confused “we don’t take anything from your investment so it all gets invested” with “we don’t charge an initial fee”. If SJP said you will pay 0.6% per year more for the life of your investment as a result of the initial advice they might have a leg to stand on but that’s not something SJP advisers have demonstrated an understanding of and I stopped selling when I realised the situation.

[muffster] 15/4/2024 15:17

Dex you are the best contributor on here