St. James's Place Share Discussion Threads

[ozzmosiz] 13/3/2024 15:15

Fantastic analysis....

[jakleeds] 13/3/2024 14:55

These are going to 3quid.

[dexdringle] 13/3/2024 10:01

hxxps://www.ftadviser.com/regulation/2024/03/13/time-to-review-systems-in-face-of-fca-ongoing-advice-review/

Perhaps SJP are just ahead of the curve 🤔

[dexdringle] 13/3/2024 09:24

hxxps://www.cityam.com/northern-law-firm-looks-to-take-advantage-of-turmoil-at-st-jamess-place/

There is something ironic about an ambulance chasing outfit criticising fees while taking 40% of compensation as a fee for something the clients could easily do themselves 🤣

Bit like those firms who 'process' online your passport application for £60 when you could enter the exact same info free online direct to the Passport Office 🙄

[dexdringle] 13/3/2024 09:14

If SJP can't survive then the whole business of Wealth Management / Financial Advice is done for.

SJP aren't doing anything exciting, or different, or radical. They're pretty much doing the same thing as everyone else. So everyone else will (eventually) face the same problems as SJP.

[jgoldby] 13/3/2024 09:03

Unfortunately SJP is way more expensive to run in its current form and it is using the majority of its cash flow to feather the beds of its middle management.

There is talk of consultations in the staff but that will only help the future owners of the business, the question for current shareholders is if there is enough value left for them to benefit in the companies future.

I’d suspect the future will be the break up of the advice network and the product side being sold to fund the compensation costs. Might need a period of public ownership to establish alternative advice capacity but a rescue plan seems pretty fanciful.

Then the question will be who knew what and when.

[muffster] 12/3/2024 22:58

Great write up Dex.

[freedomexpress747] 12/3/2024 21:04

There is a solution here, but it would reduce the market cap by approximately a third... involve waiving all exit charges now (before the regulator forces this on them), slash all other charges by at least a third etc. Then there's bloated overheads everywhere. If they don't, then the only thing that can save them is a mega bull market, where active funds out perform passives.Not a holder, but will watch with interest...

[dexdringle] 12/3/2024 12:03

The solution here is simple.

- Start charging the same 3% up front as everyone else (and stop the free entry / six year early redemption thing). Split 2% adviser / 1% SJP.

- reduce the Product Fee to 0.8% making the annual fees 0.8% product, 0.5% fund fees, 0.5% ongoing support fee = 1.8% total.

- get a grip on fund performance and get funds into the top quartile.

SJP is the same as any other IFA or Advice operation. They are all much of a muchness. The only differentiator really is the quality, of and relationship with, the adviser. Products are pretty much the same wherever you go.

The above would translate to around £1.4bn gross income and £600 million net profit.

[dexdringle] 11/3/2024 19:11

hXXps://citywire.com/funds-insider/news/harris-associates-backs-st-james-s-place-but-insists-partners-must-pay/a2438025

[dexdringle] 11/3/2024 19:03

It would be interesting to know who is selling at this price.

[quepassa] 11/3/2024 19:00

The price graph indicates that the share price has great downward momentum and a lot further to fall.

all imo. dyor.
qp

[dexdringle] 11/3/2024 18:36

I guess that's where due diligence comes into play ? Examples of where you didn't get what you thought you'd bought, and the implications of that, would be useful. I know two SJP partners who 'bought' books of business and, in both cases, it went very well.

No. It's like trying to take over the bully's lunch money franchise and finding out you're not up to it.

My calling BS was in respect of your hint that there is some other, as yet unannounced, elephant in the room....

[porsche1945] 11/3/2024 14:35

This bag of shyte heading back under 4 quid, who knows, maybe this hopeless brexit government will offer incentives to force pension funds to invest their clients hard earned in SJP.

[dexdringle] 11/3/2024 13:48

So what should a retiring adviser (SJP or otherwise) do with his clients? Most service businesses sell for a multiple of annual fees. Goodwill if you like.

The whole point is that if, and when, your adviser retires (average adviser age is mid 50's) there is a mechanism to pass you to a new adviser to continue the relationship. It's no skin off your nose whether your adviser sold you or gave you away. He got £X and someone else paid £X. It is irrelevant whether your new adviser used his own savings or borrowed the money.

I know a guy who is a window cleaner. If he has an 'outlier' client who is geographically awkward he will sell the client to a more local window cleaner for 4 x the price of a clean. So if the job is £30 every six weeks he'll sell the client for £120, introduce the new guy to the client, and leave him to it. It's exactly the same.

[tim 3] 11/3/2024 12:45

I know there is a temptation to only see the negative side at times like this but selling clients to other advisors and all this loans business just sounds really shoddy !

[dexdringle] 11/3/2024 12:00

It's already down 75% from its peak couple of years ago. That's pretty drastic right there.

It is already priced as toast.

[pander45] 11/3/2024 11:40

This is toast, super crispy.

[andrewhbruce] 11/3/2024 09:13

The whole thing stinks.

[jgoldby] 11/3/2024 06:18

The purchase of clients is based on the understanding that they have been looked after properly. SJP have now admitted that the evidence of this does not exist and it was their responsibility to do this work.

It’s not rocket science, this would crate a further £1.5bn potential claim against SJP from advisers.

Still this isn’t the big one.

[dexdringle] 10/3/2024 18:22

So, as an SJP Partner, you borrowed from SJP to buy a bunch of clients, at a price of the usual 6 x ongoing annual advice fees, and you then claimed that SJPs valuation of the clients you bought was negligent ? Meaning you think you overpaid for the clients you bought ?

In what way was the valuation 'negligent' ?

Edit: there is no such thing as 'ongoing suitability of advice'. The advice at the point of sale of a product is either suitable or it isn't. It's documented in a Suitability Report.

Ongoing advice is really 'ongoing support and availability' with the possibility of further fresh advice on new (or additional) product sales which, themselves, would be subject to fresh advice documentation.

You can't then start trying to determine how much activity was sufficient. Those getting a refund will mostly be those for whom SJP cannot demonstrate ANY contact or service whatsoever. Abandoned clients effectively.