St. James's Place Share Discussion Threads

[jubberjim] 18/10/2023 18:51

This active dog has screwed himself

Into the sock drawer we go

See you jimmie

[dexdringle] 18/10/2023 15:39

I was in agreement with you there right up to the point where you blamed Brexit.....

[porsche1945] 18/10/2023 15:11

Shares back to 2013 price and still tanking, 10 years to go nowhere, just shows how pointless U.K. dividend investing is, the capital destruction through the whole index whether it’s the likes of Vod/bt/financials etc, just dire and uninvestable. U.K. now for trading and shorting purposes only as it circles the brexit induced U bend.

[fenners66] 18/10/2023 12:44

I don't disagree with that dex.

I know someone who over the years has been a happy client with sjp - their returns were comparable to others.
Charges seem high but overall they were happy.

The service they received was not necessarily what they were paying for , and I'm told they have stopped doing the fancy stationery.

However I also know someone who's investments were "managed" by an IFA who charged 3% of those investments regardless of performance who made annual changes , to justify their existence , e.g. if something was performing well they would sell it , to move to something that went down only to come back a year later and pay more , the written justification for annual changes did not add up and each change attracted more commission.....

We all know that some funds perform one year but are down another - it just depends how the market sentiment is - but one thing the board has under its immediate control is communication and that yesterday was amateurish.

[dexdringle] 18/10/2023 11:58

For shareholders there have been two problems where one has now segued into the other.

The first was the managements inability to explain clearly how their charges work and how it was simply a different way of doing things to other firms (but with, as near as dammit, the same end result)

It has now become a different issue of communication where the management has again failed to communicate clearly the implications of the change in respect of cashflow and profitability leaving some uncertainty.

The net result is a hammering of the share price. I think it is now a good opportunity to make more changes. The whole board for starters.

[quepassa] 18/10/2023 10:30

Maybe now but not in the past.

You have clearly demonstrated how modern internet-based technology is nowadays catching up with all aspects of financial advice and the cost of financial products - hence the ongoing press furore.

all imo. dyor.
qp

[dexdringle] 18/10/2023 09:50

SJP use a common external sourcing system for quotes for life insurance and other protection plans for which they don't have their own internal products.

I had my SJP partner do some quotes on this for life cover for my brother-in-law. The quoted premium figures were almost identical to those online available from, for example, Beagle.com and Deadhappy. I told him to go with Beagle as it could be done in minutes over the internet rather than having to go through the whole Grand National course of meetings, fact finds and suitability reports that SJP would need to do.

SJP don't have the luxury of being able to do execution only like these people do in the TV adverts when they call up the insurance company direct for a quote and to put cover in place while they are cooking the tea. Despite that, the cost was within pennies the same.

[quepassa] 18/10/2023 06:37

Tim,

There are mark-ups, commission trails, fees, retainers, introduction fees etc etc etc. Yes, you would expect that.

So you might expect - and even be prepared- to pay a little more - but, come on, 100% higher is taking the proverbial.

This was not in the 80's when I got the quote but a few years into the new millennium.

Re "much easier to access people just buy/invest directly.".

I consider myself financially sophisticated but the Pensions industry is so bound up in governmental red tape, labyrinthine jargon, hard-to-comprehend ever-changing rules and regulations that most people still need an advisor.

There is of course good and not so good advice and the charging structures by the providers are not always clearly understood by the end-users.

It's all an industry-wide con. The industry could make it easier if they wanted but it would not suit their purposes.


all imo. dyor.
qp

[tim 3] 17/10/2023 21:11

QueDoes not surprise me at all it's old fashioned selling with loads of "middlemen " being paid along the way.Might have worked in the 80's not so much these days with information much easier to access people just buy/invest directly.

[dexdringle] 17/10/2023 21:02

I can't read those (and am not going to register so I can) but from what I can see at least two of these look like fraud cases not inappropriate advice? And one might be an investment loss situation which might be about the appropriateness of the investment risk (although, without seeing it, I cant imagine how Mrs Miggins could suddenly lose £125,000 even with SJPs woeful funds)

Three cases in four years from 4,500 advisers and half a million clients doesn't sound too bad....

[wolfofwolves] 17/10/2023 20:07

You can register free/for a discount to The Times for a month I think, The comments readers have made below the articles are worth a read.

[wolfofwolves] 17/10/2023 20:05

Dexdringle, you ask : are there many reports of SJP giving inappropriate advice ?

If you do a search on Google, you’ll see that one of their advisers had been featured in the Times and Sunday Times a few times for exactly that.

Links are below for your convenience :





And more recently, the following is the same SJP firm (you can see that he’s the one who replies if you read the full article).

[quepassa] 17/10/2023 19:48

Many moons ago, I inquired about some insurance products with SJP.

They quoted a policy with a monthly premium of circa £600 pcm.

I subsequently obtained direct quotes from three other household-name insurance companies for EXACTLY the same terms, including a direct quote with the same insurance company offered by SJP.

The direct quote was c. £300 pcm from the very same insurance company for an identical policy.

Although I had been very impressed by SJP's high quality, creamy and sumptuous velum stationery with appropriate crests/coronets/portcullises on it , all enclosed in an equally decadent envelope, this alone was not enough to convince me to go with them.

The SJP quote was double the monthly premium of the direct quote.

I did wonder to myself at the time where the other £300 pcm would have gone.

Sometimes Form does not necessarily equate to Substance.


All imo. Dyor.
QP

[tim 3] 17/10/2023 18:49

Very true.

[dexdringle] 17/10/2023 18:45

Well, I suppose you don't know until it has happened that something has underperformed. Hindsight and all that. SJP can change the external managers making investment decisions at the drop of a hat. And often do. Unfortunately, they often then choose another duffer.

[tim 3] 17/10/2023 17:32

Was told by one of their advisors years ago they do not accept underperformance from their fund managers, it appears now they do.

[dexdringle] 17/10/2023 17:29

Passive is reaching a tipping point though. Passive / Index funds buy both the good and bad companies indiscriminately. This means they over pay for the bad ones (whose price is artificially held up by passive buying) and buy too few of the good companies whose values aren't boosted by the buying that should be going into those rather than the poor ones.

We are at a point now where opportunities for good Active managers to buy just the good companies cheaper than they should be. The Active dog will soon have its day.....

[dexdringle] 17/10/2023 17:24

Yes, I think we can all agree that:

1. SJP need to (somehow) significant improve fund performance

2. If they did, and the performance was stellar, then their charges would be far less of an issue

[tim 3] 17/10/2023 16:37

Correct.Historically the S&P has returned an average of 10% a year over the last 30 years and the fees are tiny compared with SJP and their underperforming funds.

[pugugly] 17/10/2023 16:22

Far cheaper to use trackers - Say FTSE = S&P and possibly NAS. Very very few managers beat the market and most after charges well underperform.

[dexdringle] 17/10/2023 15:23

....in which case it's a race to the bottom. There's always someone who'll do it cheaper.

[tim 3] 17/10/2023 15:18

Still don't see what the advantage is compared with paying a good independent financial advisor who can look at all products available on the market not just the poor performing SJP funds and charge a flat fee which will be a fraction of what SJP charge.

[cromw3ll] 17/10/2023 15:06

There are some very good fund selectors around for a fraction of the cost of SJP. TBH people can do a lot themselves if they put the effort in, I just wish the government would stop interfering and treating people like idiots. SJP need to adapt, change and get with the program so to speak, they have to offer MORE to justify their fees.

[dexdringle] 17/10/2023 14:15

There are massive misconceptions about the current charging basis. SJP are right about that bit.

There is little point them labouring the differences because all that is happening is that they are going from 3 x 2 = 6 to 2 x 3 = 6.

The new 4.5% up front and a 1.6% annual fee or the old 0% up front and a 2% annual fee. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

It was never about the absolute amount charged. It was about the odd way they did it.

There may be a modest charge reduction overall which should be offset by rising funds under management.

When this does wash out a profitable business will remain. I expect the current price will be a low point but existing shareholders who have been hammered might not forgive and forget so easily.

I can still envisage a bid from some opportunist VC outfit before the share price recovers back to some sort of reasonable place. 4,500 qualified and motivated advisers and £150 in FUM all for £4billion. If you wanted a foothold in the UK Wealth Management arena it would be rude not to. Good god, people have paid multiples of that for near worthless tech start ups.