St. James's Place Share Discussion Threads

[dexdringle] 17/3/2024 15:34:03

The FCA have already had their fun with SJP and forced a ridiculous £420 million provision. They don't want to kill SJP as it is one of the big geese laying the golden regulator fee eggs. They used SJP as a whipping boy to put the wind up everyone else.

They will move on to the other targets now among the 20 biggest...

[jgoldby] 17/3/2024 13:20:35

It’s not about you as the client wanting to waste your money it’s about the adviser being able to provide good value.

If they aren’t providing the service that is being paid for then they can’t accept the payment.

The reason I can’t go into detail about my issues with SJP is that it is ongoing and until the FCA publish what they are investigating I’m not going to do anything that would jeopardise enforcement.

You’ll know you have the full story when the FCA publish.

[jakleeds] 16/3/2024 15:37:23

You need to double check that they have actually switched the fee off.

Someone I know had investments with one of SJP’s ‘partner practices’.

Alarm bells started ringing when the practice was featured for various alleged misdemeanours in the press a number of times.

The person wrote a letter asking SJP to change the amount of income being paid from the investment and also to turn the ongoing advice fee off.

The income was changed the following month (proving SJP received the letter).

There was no info about the advice fee so the person wrote to them 6 months later to ask if it had been switched off. It hadn’t been switched off, and SJP blamed a ‘technical issue’. Hmmm

If the person wasn’t switched on (pun intended), they’d never have known that the fee wasn’t switched off.

So anyone switching the fee off needs to check that it has been done.

[dexdringle] 16/3/2024 15:23:13

Unless I instruct him not to (turn it off). Unless you're telling me I'm not allowed to pay whoever I want whatever I want ?

This is where it is wrong. They shouldn't call it an Ongoing Advice Fee. It should be an 'Adviser Access Retainer'. Doing an annual review and updating my 'fact find' isn't giving me advice. But if I need something I can just call as an existing client. Otherwise I'm scratting around trying to find an adviser each time.

Imagine a top flight adviser. He has 100 very wealthy clients. That's the max he will accommodate. There are another 20 on a 'waiting list' hoping for a slot. He charges each client a retainer of £500pm plus fees if he does work. A client dies and he can take a new one from the waiting pool. Does he take:

a) New Client A who says he'll only pay on a transactional basis as and when.

b) New Client B who is happy to pay the £500pm retainer plus fees for any work done.

...and you still haven't answered the question about exactly what went wrong for you....

[jgoldby] 16/3/2024 12:03:59

If you decline the advice the adviser has to turn off the the fee within 18 months of the last review. You are saying you don’t need the advice so why are you paying for it?

It’s possibly the easiest advice to give don’t pay 0.5% of your investment for advice you don’t need, it’s a touch paradoxical but ending the advice fee might be the only advice you need.

[dexdringle] 16/3/2024 09:48:44

I don't think it helps that the 0.5% annual fee is called an 'ongoing advice fee'. There is not necessarily a need for 'ongoing advice'. I have a pension with SJP and I declined my partners recent invite for an 'annual review' because I'm happy as things are - and don't want to waste my (or his) time having a pointless meeting as there is no chance of anything being changed at this point. I know that he is there, and available, if I need him at any point.

I understood that qualified advisers were in short supply with numbers dropping. You'd think therefore that people of means would be falling over themselves to secure the ongoing availability of a qualified adviser. And certainly not treating those advisers like some ten a penny numpty that they pay now and again to clean their car.

The ongoing advice fee is really a fee to secure 'availability and support as necessary'. Essentially, it is a retainer.

[jgoldby] 15/3/2024 14:39:59

The ad campaign will placate advisers who must be incredibly concerned that they are trapped on a sinking ship.

SJP are spamming the news feeds on Google, yesterday their bank details were on the front page of news. This ad campaign is being covered by every PR agency in a desperate attempt to push the bad press out of search results. I wonder how long before Google reacts to there abusing the search.

The band will play on to the bitter end but the longer this runs.

[dexdringle] 15/3/2024 11:25:57

I get that tracker funds will be selling proportionally to any fall in the price. But they didn't cause ths fall in the price in the first place - they are just reacting to it....

[jakleeds] 15/3/2024 10:00:12

Ftse100/250 trackers will be selling these.

[jakleeds] 15/3/2024 08:20:42

These should bounce today as shorters close their weekly positions.

SJP have said that they expect to be back on a profit trajectory from 2027, so there’s a hell of a lot of bad news to come between now and then imo.

They made their previous announcement after the FTSE reshuffle had happened, but they are heading out of the FTSE100 and possibly even the FTSE250 in June. All imo.

[jakleeds] 14/3/2024 12:42:07

5th June I believe

[action] 14/3/2024 12:13:32

Does anyone knows FTSE reshuffle date please?

[ozzmosiz] 13/3/2024 15:15:22

Fantastic analysis....

[jakleeds] 13/3/2024 14:55:05

These are going to 3quid.

[dexdringle] 13/3/2024 10:01:50

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 09:24:53

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 09:14:01

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 09:03:05

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 22:58:10

Great write up Dex.

[freedomexpress747] 12/3/2024 21:04:29

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...