We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| St. James's Place Plc | STJ | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| -6.50 | -0.72% | 897.00 | 16:35:02 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 906.50 | 890.50 | 906.50 | 897.00 | 903.50 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| LIFE INSURANCE |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 28/6/2024 10:45 by quepassa nothing to do with St. Jimmy's.sector news. share already up 7.5% today but nobody appears to have read the RNS yet because TAVI is a small-cap stock and completely off the investor radar . an interesting situation |
Posted at 16/4/2024 06:55 by the millipede 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. |
Posted at 10/4/2024 21:22 by jakleeds Merchants trust sells SJP citing potential client confusion over fee overhaulInvestment trust Merchants sells SJP as managers warn of ‘operational difficulties, customer and partner confusion and further regulatory intervention’. The strong post-pandemic performance of a £792.1m investment trust stalled last year after it suffered a double blow from the intervention of the FCA against two of its holdings. Fund managers Simon Gergel, Richard Knight and Andrew Koch took the ‘difficult decision’ to sell St James’s Place (SJP) from investment trust Merchants (MRCH) after the FCA forced the national advice firm to overhaul its charges. The company, which Merchants had held since 2018, subsequently set aside £426m to refund clients who had paid for but not received ongoing advice – a move that required SJP to halve its dividend. The managers ditched the stock before then but, with the shares going on to halve in the 12 months to 31 January, Merchants reported SJP’s woes had knocked 1.1% of its annual return. Writing in the annual report, they said the new business model would be good for consumers and ultimately might shore up SJP’s market position, but in the short to medium term would create big risks and uncertainties. ‘There is a lengthy delay until the changes take effect, and in the meantime there are risks of operational difficulties, customer and partner confusion, and further regulatory intervention,’ they said. ‘Investors must also become comfortable with a very material step down in cash generation when the new model begins, before growing relatively strongly in the following years. This unusual profile of cash generation creates additional uncertainty.’ Wealth manager Close Brothers also weighed on the portfolio, knocking 0.7% off Merchants’ annual return after the FCA launched a review of historic commissions paid by the company for selling car finance that could have ‘a material impact on the company’. ‘Other issues, such as the impact of lower asset prices in its wealth management business, are more normal, cyclical concerns. But the combination of events this year had a major impact on the shares,’ said the management trio. In what chair Colin Clark called a ‘disappointing Merchants’ record remains strong, with the latest data at 8 April showing net asset value (NAV) growth of 25.3% and 46.6% over three and five years, respectively, ahead of the All-Share’s 21.8% and 27.2%. A recent weakening in the shares has seen them slip to a 3.6% discount to NAV, reducing shareholder returns to 19.1% and 39.4% over three and five years. Despite the stock setbacks, income from the portfolio was strong, with revenue earnings per share rising 6.3% to a record 30.5p. This enabled the board to declare a final dividend of 7.1p, giving a total payout for the year of 28.4p, up 2.9% on the 27.6p paid in the previous year. The 5%-yielding ‘dividend hero’ of the Association of Investment Companies has now paid a consistently rising dividend for 42 years. |
Posted at 02/4/2024 12:37 by the millipede I think POLR is probably a decent investment idea, to be honest.Asset managers are beaten down, see also Premier Miton and Liontrust, but unlike those two POLR funds seem less UK weighted. Of course many commentators think the time for UK shares to shine is coming. I am far from convinced, so would pick POLR out of those three. But I think SJP is better. 1/ It is misunderstood. Many people don’t even grasp it is essentially an asset manager. They focus on the financial advice side which is not quite right, even though SJP makes money from advisers. 2/ It had capital inflows last year when most others saw outflows, which suggests resilience. 3/ It has an FCA investigation that again I think investors have misunderstood and will be value enhancing in the long term. 4/ All this equals a far more beaten down share price with greater change of outsize gains in the future, as more people cotton on to an improving reality over the next few years. IMO BWDIK |
Posted at 19/3/2024 22:25 by dexdringle Would be nice to see some very large director buys. And / or some RNS's of institutional / activist investor accumulations.Once it turns it will move quickly. |
Posted at 08/3/2024 12:10 by tim 3 QP.Agree, the drop in net inflows has to be a huge concern. I think investors will need to see this improve before we see any real confidence return. |
Posted at 06/3/2024 13:12 by tim 3 Used to subscribe to IC.Their recs were so bad decided to dig a little deeper into the jurnos who write their articles. Was pretty shocked by the lack of experience of many, some were not long out of education with little to no "real world" investment experience and they were telling investors who probably had way more experience what to buy and sell! Needless to say I cancelled my subscription. |
Posted at 05/3/2024 09:10 by dexdringle "The investors do not see a chunk of their pot disappear on day one when they invest, even though that is what is happening. They just smooth it through the accounting".......so it's exactly the same but done in a different way. He's even saying that himself. Roughly speaking, instead of 3% up front you pay 0.5% per annum extra charges for the first six years (after which you can exit without withdrawal fees if you don't then like paying the level of ongoing fees thereafter). It's a non issue. Hardly anyone leaves in the first six years anyway (if they do then they shouldn't have done it in the first place). He invests in a company then refers it to Parliament attempt to damage the company. He's not saying "if they sort this out the company will be much more valuable". Since when did activist investors buy into a company then try to damage it ? The blokes a clown. |
Posted at 16/12/2023 12:30 by fenners66 Just read the article about charging base rate +3% for loans to buy out partners.It's a bit one sided as these loans would have been just as high or higher rates in the past , SJP has been around a lot longer than low interest rates. So really its not the interest rate on the loan that is the problem but the price charged. I guess that for some will be them trying to recover the amounts they paid whilst interest rates were so low. Commodities over priced because of low borrowing costs. SJP should not be raising funds to help out here - they invest in markets and surely see the benefit of market forces at work. Their members "franchises?" should just sell at the new lower market rate and tough it out. Tough luck your investments CAN go down as well as up - as they are fond of telling retail investors. Problem is these "advisors" have got used to the life of the one way bet. Commission if your investments go up , commission if they go down. The true question though - is do they need these independent or tied advisors at all ? There is the internet now - just make your product compelling and let people come to you. Any truely independent advisor can send people too and still get commission. |
Posted at 25/10/2023 08:48 by dexdringle Tim3, the problem is that where the fund owns physical properties, they can't pay back investors money because they don't have the liquidity. Unless they post a few bricks to the investor instead.And if they flog off the better properties to pay out theose wanting to cash out now then the remaining unit holders are left owning the dregs. The only was to do it is sell all properties so the fund ends up 100% cash then distribute that to everyone equally. Which takes time. Hence the suspension.... |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
