St. James's Place Share Discussion Threads

[jakleeds] 15/5/2024 16:51

Maybe BlackRock are stupid … in 2012 after SJP announced their forecast-beating results, Blackrock announced they were shorting the shares.

The shares went on to rise to around £17 each.

02 NOV, 2012
BlackRock discloses St James’s Place short position
BlackRock Investment Management disclosed a short position in St James’s Place a day after the firm posted its third quarter numbers, which sent its share to within touching distance of a one-year
BlackRock Investment Management disclosed a short position in St James’s Place (SJP) a day after results from the wealth manager.

In an announcement posted on the London Stock Exchange late yesterday afternoon, it was revealed BlackRock had a 0.25% short on SJP.

[dexdringle] 15/5/2024 12:28

At £4 it was.

[dassera] 15/5/2024 12:26

Probably one for the UK Special Situations fund?

[dexdringle] 15/5/2024 12:17

BlackRock have increased from 6.36% to exactly 10%. Now holding over 500 million shares.

Do we think BlackRock are stupid ? Or might they know a bargain when they see one ?

I'm am, though, surprised we haven't seen some more positive movement in the share price when this was announced. Mind you, sentiment is so poor here that, even if Warren Buffet announced he'd bought 20%, I doubt we'd see much movement 🤣

[dexdringle] 14/5/2024 09:52

It has gone quiet on here.

Just waiting for the first £7 takeover bid now I suppose....

[jakleeds] 10/5/2024 20:44

Haha. Free trial for a few weeks.

[jakleeds] 10/5/2024 08:15

Got a right hammering again in the FT the other day. The comments are worth reading too !!!

[dexdringle] 05/5/2024 17:18

That's the problem with announcing a £470m pot. Everyone and their dog will try to get a slice of it. It's 'free money' after all 🙄.

Problem here is proof. Adviser says he visited. Client says he didn't. Adviser produces a file note detailing discussion at meeting 🤷‍a94;️.

SJP didn't keep this money, they passed it straight to the Adviser (unless the client was an orphan one without an Adviser - in which case SJP should have switched off the 0.5% ongoing advice fee*).

Like we said:

1. SJP will claw back from Advisers where it can be clearly shown that the Advisers haven't done the job properly but were paid regardless.

2. *SJP will have to stand the cost of refunding people who clearly have no adviser because SJP kept that money.

3. SJP may also have to refund people where the evidence is not sufficient - but where, regardless, they might then not try to claw it back from the Adviser because the Adviser is adamant he did provide a service and has a certain amount of evidence and SJP give him the benefit of the doubt.

If I hadn't already bought these at £10 I'd be buying now at £4.50.

[tim 3] 05/5/2024 13:36

The "ambulance chasers" have been running adds on the radio, (interestingly where SJP are advertising too) simply saying if you haven't had a visit every year contact us as we believe you could be due compensation and they have put half a billion on one side!Not saying I agree with it but bet they get a fair few enquiries

[the millipede] 05/5/2024 12:36

Thanks. Would also be interesting to know if any part of this fee is returned from STJ in the event of an advice refund.

[dexdringle] 02/5/2024 17:25

I'm not sure. I have a feeling that Partners pay a separate annual fee to SJP to cover the cost of that. I'm sure JGoldby will be able to confirm when he next visits this BB.

[the millipede] 02/5/2024 17:14

So how is FCA authorisation and regulation paid for? I might be wrong but I can’t imagine each partnership handles their own compliance.

[dexdringle] 02/5/2024 11:12

SJP don't take a percentage of the Adviser Fee for compliance. The adviser gets the whole 0.50% (or 0.25% if he has discounted it). SJP get the 'Product' Fee plus, presumably, a small slice of the Fund Management Fees.

Clients who have not been serviced will either be those of ex advisers where the client is an 'orphan' and SJP should have switched off the fee OR those of 'live' Partners from whom SJP will claw back any refunds (assuming it is clear that the client wasn't serviced and SJP haven't simply refunded for an easy life where a dispute remains between the client and the Partner as to whether servicing actually took place - which is likely to be a record keeping issue).

[the millipede] 02/5/2024 09:46

The main theme of the complaints is the ongoing adviser fee charged in the absence of any ongoing advice.

SJP is likely liable for some of this as they take a percentage for compliance.

But I still think, based on cash paid out so far, complaint levels will turn out very low.

[dexdringle] 01/5/2024 13:14

scemer. Interesting. The PARTNER paid the 2 x £250. Or maybe SJP paid it and debited the Partner ? Either way SJP didn't pay it !

[scemer] 01/5/2024 08:19

Jak sounds like you read too many conspiracy theories I deal with a partner he's paid 2 £250 claims he's been doing the job 20 plus years you're way off the mark on every level

[jakleeds] 30/4/2024 22:17

The £450mill is going to be less than half of what is required. And these complaints will go on for decades.

SJP are having to take on loads of staff to cope with the level of complaints they’re receiving. They have to train them and give them equipment and support. Not cheap. Very expensive, in fact.

The one thing the market hates, is uncertainty. There is so much uncertainty here.

You’ve got self employed players running practices, employing more self-employed players, who then want to be at the top of the pyramid, so they’re employing their own players , including family members, to keep themselves afloat.

Oh my gosh.

There will be more serious repercussions here. Things will get worse and worse.

It seems that many of the players have borrowed money at several percentage points above the base rate. That might have been manageable when the base rate was 0.5% . Not any more though.

Nobody is gonna take over a company with so many self-employed players, and so much company-specific bad news all over the place.

If you haven’t seen it, watch the Wolf of Wall Street. Wow.

[dexdringle] 30/4/2024 21:22

The number of clients who have a genuine case for having been charged something for nothing will be small. They will be refunded and their ongoing charges reduced by 0.5% per annum as a non advised client. They might then transfer away. Or they might not. Who knows.

The £450m provision for redress will prove to be much more than is required.

[fenners66] 30/4/2024 19:49

There are 3 components surely.

New money inflows - those customers that are building their "wealth"
Increased market returns , the markets are up this year , even the FTSE near all time highs !
Outflows , from those that either have hit their targets and now want to spend some, if the returns are landing in their wealth account , why not ? And those that think their funds are better placed elsewhere.

The markets being up is going to encourage some to take a slice off the table , but is less money coming in and going elsewhere ?
Are there clients now aware they have been charged something for nothing and feeling wronged are going to move it ?
If they do not provide sufficient redress to those that complain - or if they get 40% ripped off by some sharks I can see them getting upset and moving...

[dexdringle] 30/4/2024 19:39

He's lying then ?

"Meanwhile, outflows remain at an elevated level, continuing a trend we have seen across our industry, as clients continue to draw upon their savings to meet continued financial needs"

[jakleeds] 30/4/2024 17:45

“ The whole wealth management industry is suffering lower inflows and higher withdrawals “

Really ?

Hargreaves Lansdown, the UK’s largest DIY investment site, reported £1.6bn of net inflows over the first three months of the year on Tuesday — in line with last year. And SJP rival Quilter last week reported £810mn of net inflows over the quarter — about double the previous year’s.

[dexdringle] 30/4/2024 15:35

The whole wealth management industry is suffering lower inflows and higher withdrawals. But the last 3 months has still seen net positive inflows and FUM up £10bn.

If SJP make, say, 0.75% of FUM with their Product Fees that's an extra £75 million per annum revenue just from the Q1 FUM change. As many overheads are fixed, a doubling of FUM equals a trebling of profit.

Jeez, there's no pleasing some people 😂

How the share price isn't over £6 is beyond me.

[jakleeds] 30/4/2024 13:53

So net inflows down around 65% and outflows are ‘at an elevated level’.

How the share price is still above 4 quid is beyond me….

[dexdringle] 30/4/2024 09:29

Net new money was £0.7bn but FUM increased by £10bn. Meaning over £9bn of growth. Which is around 5.2% overall investment growth for clients (net of charges) in just three months.