The Lemon Fool

An interesting and rather damning article in today's DT.

‘I work at St James’s Place and I’m £180,000 in debt’

St James’s Place allows its partners to borrow money from the firm in order to buy the client books off other advisers who are retiring. The scheme ensures clients are not left stranded when their adviser eventually leaves. But a partner at St James’s Place – who claims he owes the firm £180,000 – says it can prevent advisers from leaving the business for up to 10 years. He said: “St James’s Place facilitate the purchase with loans and guarantees spread over a 10-year term, which eat into the adviser’s other income, forcing them to bring in more clients’ money to increase their income.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/investing/trouble-st-james-place/

RC

I bet that’s not the worst thing that goes on there

I heard they aren't the best people to invest your money with.

I had a client who was very keen on them until I pointed out how much commission would come out of his investment. This was disclosed by the SJP guy but somehow the "benefits" mask what's actually going on. "Look over here, no don't look there." What do magicians call it? Misdirection I think.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/announcem ... ts/8059681

Final Results.

These have really not gone down well at all.

(no position...and no intention of opening one! )

monabri wrote:Final Results.

Provision of £426.0 million pre-tax (£323.7 million post-tax) established for potential client refunds linked to the historic evidencing and delivery of ongoing servicing

Their dubious practices catching up with them it would seem.

Alaric wrote:

monabri wrote:Final Results.

Provision of £426.0 million pre-tax (£323.7 million post-tax) established for potential client refunds linked to the historic evidencing and delivery of ongoing servicing

Their dubious practices catching up with them it would seem.

It was exactly that comparison that I did.

What did they do? Allegedly!

St. James's Place is awful - high and opaque charges, conflict of interest due to in-house products, and sales agents (so-called advisors) who have to flog products to recoup their initial outlay.

I hope the organisation is forced to close. They shouldn't have been allowed to operate for 10 minutes, let alone for many years.

Gerry557 wrote:What did they do? Allegedly!

Those holding investments with them are usually subject to an ongoing charge as a percentage of investment market value. That's in addition to fund related expenses of choosing and managing investments. Ostensibly this charge is for ongoing advice and monitoring, but in practice it may just line the pockets of the original sales advisor and SJP themselves.

Quoting from their press release

The Cash result for the year of £68.7 million (2022: £410.1 million) has been significantly impacted by an assessment into the evidencing and delivery of historic ongoing servicing and the provision we have established for potential client refunds. This work was undertaken following a significant increase in complaints, particularly in the latter part of 2023, mostly linked to the delivery of ongoing servicing. The assessment revealed that our evidence of ongoing client servicing was less complete in the years preceding investment into our Salesforce CRM system in 2021, and we have therefore made a provision for potential client refunds to address this. Looking forward, the investment we've made into Salesforce means we are confident this is a historic issue.

Down nearly 25%. Couldn't happen to a nicer company. IMO.

Apparently they have just under a million clients - how come so many 'investors' do not realize the incredibly high charges they are paying for 'advice' in addition to the well above market 'initial' charges?

T7

terminal7 wrote:Apparently they have just under a million clients - how come so many 'investors' do not realize the incredibly high charges they are paying for 'advice' in addition to the well above market 'initial' charges?

T7

Does that figure include people who just have a holding in an SJP OEIC? Back in the day (90s, 00s) I held a couple of their unit trusts, just bought directly from them without advice or fees - one was mediocre, but the other (Greater European Progressive) did pretty well, and is still listed on ii as available to buy, though its charge (1.78% pa) are high for these days.

EthicsGradient wrote:

terminal7 wrote:Apparently they have just under a million clients - how come so many 'investors' do not realize the incredibly high charges they are paying for 'advice' in addition to the well above market 'initial' charges?

T7

Does that figure include people who just have a holding in an SJP OEIC? Back in the day (90s, 00s) I held a couple of their unit trusts, just bought directly from them without advice or fees - one was mediocre, but the other (Greater European Progressive) did pretty well, and is still listed on ii as available to buy, though its charge (1.78% pa) are high for these days.

On their website:

We plan, grow and protect the financial futures of more than 950,000 clients across the UK by providing holistic financial planning advice and wealth management services, delivered exclusively by the Partnership, our group of more than 4,800 highly skilled advisers.

T7

ps my antennae start to quiver when I read 'holistic' and ' highly skilled advisers' in the same sentence.

terminal7 wrote:ps my antennae start to quiver when I read 'holistic' and ' highly skilled advisers' in the same sentence.

Whenever I hear the phrase 'holistic' - outside of physical optics - I reach for my Kalashnikov.

terminal7 wrote:Apparently they have just under a million clients - how come so many 'investors' do not realize the incredibly high charges they are paying for 'advice' in addition to the well above market 'initial' charges?

T7

Yes, I find it extraordinary that so many otherwise intelligent people switch off their common sense, fall for the skilled marketing b*[expletive deleted] of the 'skilled advisers' and meekly sign up for their eye watering fees. The main skill of the 'advisers' is in smooth talking the clients.

The current problem is, it seems, that many clients did not attend annual meetings with their 'partner', so the annual advice fee was for 'advice' not received. The ambulance chasing lawyers are signing up SJP clients in huge numbers and then forcing millions in refunds from SJP. SJP are tightening up their systems so as always to document advice meetings and stop the lawsuits.

All sounds like a repeat of Allied Crowbar (as Allied Dunbar were known, due to their pushy salesmen's tactics)

scrumpyjack wrote:

terminal7 wrote:Apparently they have just under a million clients - how come so many 'investors' do not realize the incredibly high charges they are paying for 'advice' in addition to the well above market 'initial' charges?

T7

Yes, I find it extraordinary that so many otherwise intelligent people switch off their common sense, fall for the skilled marketing b*[expletive deleted] of the 'skilled advisers' and meekly sign up for their eye watering fees. The main skill of the 'advisers' is in smooth talking the clients.

The current problem is, it seems, that many clients did not attend annual meetings with their 'partner', so the annual advice fee was for 'advice' not received. The ambulance chasing lawyers are signing up SJP clients in huge numbers and then forcing millions in refunds from SJP. SJP are tightening up their systems so as always to document advice meetings and stop the lawsuits.

All sounds like a repeat of Allied Crowbar (as Allied Dunbar were known, due to their pushy salesmen's tactics)

From which SJP partly emerged, IIRC.

SJP in all it's glory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._James's_Place_plc

scrumpyjack wrote:
"Yes, I find it extraordinary that so many otherwise intelligent people switch off their common sense, fall for the skilled marketing b*[expletive deleted] of the 'skilled advisers' and meekly sign up for their eye watering fees. The main skill of the 'advisers' is in smooth talking the clients.

Footballers?

"In November 2019 fourteen former footballers sued St James's Place for £15m, alleging that they had received poor advice concerning tax avoidance regarding film and overseas property investment schemes."

On me head, son!

I know for a fact my dad invested in funds advised by SJP but I've never asked any further.

Those conversations happened maybe 20 years ago and I've never gone any further - I've got on with my life etc etc.

I've no idea whether he has been over-charged but I do know that he's now in a position to no longer care. I could un-pick everything but would be interested to hear opinions as to how to progress.

The claims relate to people who were paying SJP for ongoing advice but not receiving it at the agreed level\frequency. You would need to chat with your Father to find out if that is the case with him and maybe find some original paperwork to see the level of servicing agreed. It seems their record keeping regarding servicing visits prior to 2021 wasn't all it should have been, so I guess it will be down to how efficient the SJP sales agent was who dealt with your Father.

If in doubt then I would put a claim in, the worst they can do is reject it. Make sure you file your claim direct using their complaints system rather than through some ambulance chaser/claims management company.
https://www.sjp.co.uk/help-centre/make-complaint