I consolidated my pensions with SJP, and my experience has been positive. The full value of transfer was invested without an explicit initial charge, which I preferred rather than pay an upfront charge of typically 2-3%. I am aware that I need to retain the funds with them for 6 years. My annual management charge is 1.7% for all services and fund charges. I also moved an ISA to SJP and paid an initial charge of 1.67% no exit penalty applies should I wish to transfer it elsewhere, based on my research an average IFA charges 2-3% upfront I believe, but this maybe dependent on value of assets.
Yes, some of my funds have underperformed but my adviser rebalances my portfolio each year so that my portfolio is better positioned for the following year. I also have received numerous changes to fund managers throughout the year. At my review I also receive a cashflow modelling report, this tells me whether I am on track to achieve my retirement goals and is evidence based and stress tested in line with economic scenarios and my assets. I receive this as part of my 1.7% overall annual fee. So whilst SJP are at the higher end for charges my dealings with my adviser have been transparent and in my eyes value for money. He also offered detailed guidance on my lasting power of attorney saving me from visiting a solicitor which was very helpful.
Finally when I did my own research an IFA will often have 3 charges, these being a platform cost say 0.25%, a fund charge which could be if a tracker 0.25% or 1.00% for a multi manager fund and the IFA service fee which in my experience was between 0.75% to 1.00%. I found that I was regularly offered tracker funds as they are the cheapest option which I felt subsidised the IFA service. That is not to say that the performance of trackers has not been positive I simply preferred a more combined approach of investment styles.
In summary the cheapest option is to do it yourself, but I’m too busy and accept the costs of the service I receive and value it.
St James place ARE NOT independent financial advisors. They are tied to St James Place. Believe the official term is restricted advice.
Personally I wouldn't touch them. Not saying the individuals are dodgy or anything, but why would you tie yourself to advice from someone effectively only selling products from the company that employs them?
My IFA is SJP and always liked the guy and given me good advice and helped with life insurance/critical illlness etc but he’s now being quite pushy about me investing in a VCT and I’m quite sceptical, looks very risky
Any IFA’s on here?
Your advisor is not Independent (The I in IFA).
I got my first mortgage through SJP and it was a Natwest product that they "sold" me.
Yes they do mortgage advice but aren't a lender themselves. No idea if they access whole of market.
If people are happy to use SJP then that's up to them, just be ware of at least the investment fee structure. Exit fee's, 4.5% initial investment fee etc.
If I had read this thread 10 years ago, I would not have signed up to SJP. However, they have performed well above market for me over the last 10 years and I get a good service from my advisor (perhaps beacuse I have more invested than most). I don't think I will be charged an exit fee as the investments have been there for more than 6 years.
That said, if I was starting again now with the knowledge I've gleaned from teh advisor, I would probably self-invest in a tracker.
St James place ARE NOT independent financial advisors. They are tied to St James Place. Believe the official term is restricted advice.
Personally I wouldn't touch them. Not saying the individuals are dodgy or anything, but why would you tie yourself to advice from someone effectively only selling products from the company that employs them?
My IFA is SJP and always liked the guy and given me good advice and helped with life insurance/critical illlness etc but he’s now being quite pushy about me investing in a VCT and I’m quite sceptical, looks very risky
Any IFA’s on here?
Your advisor is not Independent (The I in IFA).
I got my first mortgage through SJP and it was a Natwest product that they "sold" me.
Yes they do mortgage advice but aren't a lender themselves. No idea if they access whole of market.
If people are happy to use SJP then that's up to them, just be ware of at least the investment fee structure. Exit fee's, 4.5% initial investment fee etc.
If I had read this thread 10 years ago, I would not have signed up to SJP. However, they have performed well above market for me over the last 10 years and I get a good service from my advisor (perhaps beacuse I have more invested than most). I don't think I will be charged an exit fee as the investments have been there for more than 6 years.
That said, if I was starting again now with the knowledge I've gleaned from teh advisor, I would probably self-invest in a tracker.
I consolidated my pensions with SJP, and my experience has been positive. The full value of transfer was invested without an explicit initial charge, which I preferred rather than pay an upfront charge of typically 2-3%. I am aware that I need to retain the funds with them for 6 years. My annual management charge is 1.7% for all services and fund charges. I also moved an ISA to SJP and paid an initial charge of 1.67% no exit penalty applies should I wish to transfer it elsewhere, based on my research an average IFA charges 2-3% upfront I believe, but this maybe dependent on value of assets.
Yes, some of my funds have underperformed but my adviser rebalances my portfolio each year so that my portfolio is better positioned for the following year. I also have received numerous changes to fund managers throughout the year. At my review I also receive a cashflow modelling report, this tells me whether I am on track to achieve my retirement goals and is evidence based and stress tested in line with economic scenarios and my assets. I receive this as part of my 1.7% overall annual fee. So whilst SJP are at the higher end for charges my dealings with my adviser have been transparent and in my eyes value for money. He also offered detailed guidance on my lasting power of attorney saving me from visiting a solicitor which was very helpful.
Finally when I did my own research an IFA will often have 3 charges, these being a platform cost say 0.25%, a fund charge which could be if a tracker 0.25% or 1.00% for a multi manager fund and the IFA service fee which in my experience was between 0.75% to 1.00%. I found that I was regularly offered tracker funds as they are the cheapest option which I felt subsidised the IFA service. That is not to say that the performance of trackers has not been positive I simply preferred a more combined approach of investment styles.
In summary the cheapest option is to do it yourself, but I’m too busy and accept the costs of the service I receive and value it.
I hear what you day & agree with most of it.
Yes, there are generally 3 types of charges (platform, fund, adviser) and I try to keep the total below 1.5%pa. The platform charge should decrease the more the fund grows, so that you should he paying no more than 0.2% once you have c£250k plus in there. Platforms also have the advantage of allowing the charge to amalgamate across different products as well as including all family members. If you & your spouse/partner have pensions & ISA's then having them on a platform could mean a big saving in charges.
We've just had a change in our fees (downwards) due to consumer duty but for me there hasn't been much change. My starting rate for an initial fee is 3%, but usually I can discount this down to 2.5% or even 2%. My ongoing service fee is usually 0.5%pa, but I do have clients paying just 0.25%pa, but then they have over £500k each in ISA's and total AUM of over £1.5m.
The main thing is you have to trust your adviser. If you do & you have an ongoing service that you are happy with then stick with them.
Just from my own experience I once spoke to a financial advisor from St James Place and found them very pushy and hard sell, took ages to get rid of them from contacting me.
That's a shame to hear - but there are 4,500 across the country of differing shapes and sizes. It's no more reasonable to judge SJP by one adviser than it is the whole IFA community by one firm.
This is like avoiding eating at McDonald's because your local burger fan reviewed them "independently" and said their food was sh*t and their burgers were 4 x the price of their own.
Yodelar are basically a scam outfit. From the very first email they send when you sign up, they lie about the FSCS status of other firms to scare potential clients. They offer 5 year performance comparisons when they haven't been in existence for 5 years haha!
A tad worrying as I’ve just invested with St James’s Place. I’ve forwarded this link to my Financial Advisor or as they seem to call themselves now Wealth Advisors. I will let you know what he says.
Take a look at my response in the comment above. Yodelar's entire raison d'etre is to scare people and encourage them to sign up to their emails whereby they will try and funnel you to an Adviser for which they get paid handsomely.
St James place ARE NOT independent financial advisors. They are tied to St James Place. Believe the official term is restricted advice.
Personally I wouldn't touch them. Not saying the individuals are dodgy or anything, but why would you tie yourself to advice from someone effectively only selling products from the company that employs them?
My IFA is SJP and always liked the guy and given me good advice and helped with life insurance/critical illlness etc but he’s now being quite pushy about me investing in a VCT and I’m quite sceptical, looks very risky
Any IFA’s on here?
Your advisor is not Independent (The I in IFA).
They don't claim to be independent, however we have a Discretionary Arm with access to the whole of market if that's what a client so chooses. Given the quality of the average IFA i'm not sure for how much longer the Independent aspect can be warn as a badge of honour.
A tad worrying as I’ve just invested with St James’s Place. I’ve forwarded this link to my Financial Advisor or as they seem to call themselves now Wealth Advisors. I will let you know what he says.
SJP‘s response to Yodelar
Look, I'm no expert but it seems odd to me that they claim they use a different method of calculating stuff from their peers. Why would you do that?
A cynic might suggest there's a reason why tied advisers like being tied advisers with SJP.
The main thing is that all of the investment side is taken care of and therefore we can focus our time and energy on the part of the job that actually adds value, seeing and planning with clients. IFA's often come to the same conclusion and simply outsource their investment management to the likes of Quilters, Intelligent Pensions etc.
It's not a direct comparison for a DIY Platform with the likes of Vanguard for example. If you don't need the advice, then great, just go with one of those platforms.
It also creates much better succession & continuity planning so that, I had a period of ill health for example and was able to bring in another adviser to support in the short term with no disruption to the client or their arrangements. If I get hit by a bus my clients can handpick whom they want to deal with going forward.
There is a romantic notion about the quality and Independent nature of most IFA's, this often fades after being with said IFA for a while.
A tad worrying as I’ve just invested with St James’s Place. I’ve forwarded this link to my Financial Advisor or as they seem to call themselves now Wealth Advisors. I will let you know what he says.
SJP really should be investigated by the FCA. I have no idea how they get round their upfront & exit charges.
Absolutely criminal.
You mean the FCA that regulates them more than any other Financial Advice provider in the country? You mean the SJP that is the largest collective of qualified advisers / chartered planners in the country.
Look, the EWC aspect should have gone long ago, I'll agree with you on that. However, now that the charging will be more easily comparable how are you going to explain to your clients that after all these years of telling clients how expensive SJP are you actually charge more than the average SJP client pays? The IFA community has done a good job of propagating myths around SJP and their charges. I thoroughly enjoy seeing IFA's squirm when I challenge potential clients to ask them to set out ALL of their charges in one place. It's time that IFA's started to face the scrutiny we did, the problem is that a high proportion of you wouldn't face up to that scrutiny.
I've never used SJP so can't comment on how good or indifferent the advisors are.
But my issue (and why I'd never use them) is two fold:
1. They aren't independent and therefore severely restrict what investments would be available to me. 2. Their charges are in my view high and the added restrictions.
I just don't know why anyone would use them if I'm honest, maybe someone can explain?
Whilst It may be negotiable, from their website:
Pensions:
4.5% of fund value for the initial advice, especially as they also state 1.5% Product Charge. So 6% initial charge, that is daylight robbery no matter how you dress it up.
1% Product Charge Annually (waived if you stay their for 6 years), Year 7 to 10 1%, 10 onwards 0.85%
Additional charge for "managing and maintaining your underlying investments. These depend on the funds you choose to invest in."
So please can someone explain how those charges for a very restricted investment pool are even remotely reasonable? Why should I move my £1m pension pot (as an example) to them and pay over £60k to do so?
ISA's:
Again, 4.5% initial advice charge, plus a 0.5% product charge, say goodbye to 5% of your money on day 1. Annual 0.5% advice charge plus fund charges so they estimate between 1.6 and 1.9%.
Anyone thinking of using SJP, a non independent financial advising firm, need to give their head a very big wobble, or am I missing something, are their investments and advisors so good that they are better than the 5,001 other investment funds and advisors out there?
A tad worrying as I’ve just invested with St James’s Place. I’ve forwarded this link to my Financial Advisor or as they seem to call themselves now Wealth Advisors. I will let you know what he says.
SJP really should be investigated by the FCA. I have no idea how they get round their upfront & exit charges.
Absolutely criminal.
You mean the FCA that regulates them more than any other Financial Advice provider in the country? You mean the SJP that is the largest collective of qualified advisers / chartered planners in the country.
Look, the EWC aspect should have gone long ago, I'll agree with you on that. However, now that the charging will be more easily comparable how are you going to explain to your clients that after all these years of telling clients how expensive SJP are you actually charge more than the average SJP client pays? The IFA community has done a good job of propagating myths around SJP and their charges. I thoroughly enjoy seeing IFA's squirm when I challenge potential clients to ask them to set out ALL of their charges in one place. It's time that IFA's started to face the scrutiny we did, the problem is that a high proportion of you wouldn't face up to that scrutiny.
I'd happily put my charges up against yours....oops, I mean SJP's.
A tad worrying as I’ve just invested with St James’s Place. I’ve forwarded this link to my Financial Advisor or as they seem to call themselves now Wealth Advisors. I will let you know what he says.
SJP really should be investigated by the FCA. I have no idea how they get round their upfront & exit charges.
Absolutely criminal.
You mean the FCA that regulates them more than any other Financial Advice provider in the country? You mean the SJP that is the largest collective of qualified advisers / chartered planners in the country.
Look, the EWC aspect should have gone long ago, I'll agree with you on that. However, now that the charging will be more easily comparable how are you going to explain to your clients that after all these years of telling clients how expensive SJP are you actually charge more than the average SJP client pays? The IFA community has done a good job of propagating myths around SJP and their charges. I thoroughly enjoy seeing IFA's squirm when I challenge potential clients to ask them to set out ALL of their charges in one place. It's time that IFA's started to face the scrutiny we did, the problem is that a high proportion of you wouldn't face up to that scrutiny.
I'd happily put my charges up against yours....oops, I mean SJP's.
I just don't see how SJP's fee's are acceptable for the service they can provide. I rambled a bit in my other post, but ultimately why WOULD you use SJP over and above anyone else? It's not due to fund performance, it's not due to being independent, it's not as they have access to whole of market, it's not down to the advisors being better than anyone else (I'd argue they are worse as restricted) and it's certainly not down to the fee's being low
I've never used SJP so can't comment on how good or indifferent the advisors are.
But my issue (and why I'd never use them) is two fold:
1. They aren't independent and therefore severely restrict what investments would be available to me. 2. Their charges are in my view high and the added restrictions.
I just don't know why anyone would use them if I'm honest, maybe someone can explain?
Whilst It may be negotiable, from their website:
Pensions:
4.5% of fund value for the initial advice, especially as they also state 1.5% Product Charge. So 6% initial charge, that is daylight robbery no matter how you dress it up.
1% Product Charge Annually (waived if you stay their for 6 years), Year 7 to 10 1%, 10 onwards 0.85%
Additional charge for "managing and maintaining your underlying investments. These depend on the funds you choose to invest in."
So please can someone explain how those charges for a very restricted investment pool are even remotely reasonable? Why should I move my £1m pension pot (as an example) to them and pay over £60k to do so?
ISA's:
Again, 4.5% initial advice charge, plus a 0.5% product charge, say goodbye to 5% of your money on day 1. Annual 0.5% advice charge plus fund charges so they estimate between 1.6 and 1.9%.
Anyone thinking of using SJP, a non independent financial advising firm, need to give their head a very big wobble, or am I missing something, are their investments and advisors so good that they are better than the 5,001 other investment funds and advisors out there?
Well, much like the wider marker there are good, bad and indifferent quality advisers.
1. OK so the starting point is whole-of-market, then Investment companies narrow that down. The only difference at SJP is that process happens earlier and therefore is undertaken by the specialists as opposed to most IFA's that likes to play fund manager or simply farm it out. Do you really think the average IFA has the skills and resources to fully assess and continue to monitor each and all of the options available? No, they simply farm it out to an external manager to do it.
2. Then where is your criticism of the rest of the big players? SJP is in the bottom quartile of charges compared to the big players and about half way when you take into account the smaller players. The charges are only high compared with doing it yourself. If you have the time, skills and inclination to do it yourself then great! That doesn't make the charging structure expensive.
Re Charges, you have based your entire view on the MAXIMUM that an SJP Partner is able to charge. By the same logic, if an IFA's network doesn't set out a maximum for them to abide by I can say "oh well I wont use them because they could charge me 10% upfront."
I have NEVER charged 5% on an ISA contribution, the most i've every charged is 3% although often we will do it at 0% if for example we are doing a pension transfer. The average charged by SJP Partners on ISA's I believe is around 2.5%.
Re Pensions, as you would have seen that will be gone in just over a year. It shouldn't really have been allowed given that it was outlawed for IFAs' and therefore i support the changes. With that said, I have a lot of longstanding clients who, because the pension remained after 6 years, paid 0% initial charges.
Finally, you are only comparing against our core IMA products. Especially for larger investments we will use our discretionary fund manager arm which is whole-of-market and I've seem them do some really cool stuff.
The reality is that no one company is 'the best'. People would judge that on different metrics, naturally. If we ignore the 90% of commentary on SJP, which is either marketing material or IFA's myths, and focus on the facts the client outcomes simply do not match the nonsense spewed. Finally, even if it were all true, if SJP were the most expensive, worst performing, worst service, then how bad is the rest of the industry for SJP to be the biggest provider in the UK?
I'm not suggesting that SJP shouldn't be heavily scrutinised, however we simply do not see this scrutiny of other providers. Why? Because if your task is to get engagement on your website and clicks, you write about SJP and not an IFA Practice.
A tad worrying as I’ve just invested with St James’s Place. I’ve forwarded this link to my Financial Advisor or as they seem to call themselves now Wealth Advisors. I will let you know what he says.
SJP really should be investigated by the FCA. I have no idea how they get round their upfront & exit charges.
Absolutely criminal.
You mean the FCA that regulates them more than any other Financial Advice provider in the country? You mean the SJP that is the largest collective of qualified advisers / chartered planners in the country.
Look, the EWC aspect should have gone long ago, I'll agree with you on that. However, now that the charging will be more easily comparable how are you going to explain to your clients that after all these years of telling clients how expensive SJP are you actually charge more than the average SJP client pays? The IFA community has done a good job of propagating myths around SJP and their charges. I thoroughly enjoy seeing IFA's squirm when I challenge potential clients to ask them to set out ALL of their charges in one place. It's time that IFA's started to face the scrutiny we did, the problem is that a high proportion of you wouldn't face up to that scrutiny.
I'd happily put my charges up against yours....oops, I mean SJP's.
OK cool, let's do it;
Initial Charges
We charge a maximum of 3%, average looks like it would be around the 2% mark for my business.
Ongoing Charges:
Depends on portfolio, but looking at the last couple of new clients they have been 1.62% - 1.67% PA
0.5% of this is currently Ongoing Advice Fee (My bit) and therefore can be turned off.
Re Pensions I suspect we will do a lot of new business at 1-2% initial charge (Depending on size) and I believe the ongoing will be a tad higher, we will soon see.
We don't charge any additional fees whatsoever.
I love the arrogance of the "sorry, SJP's". You do all of your own investment work do you? No external managers / fund houses doing the work for you I hope? Otherwise, that's a little hypocritical don't you think?
A tad worrying as I’ve just invested with St James’s Place. I’ve forwarded this link to my Financial Advisor or as they seem to call themselves now Wealth Advisors. I will let you know what he says.
SJP really should be investigated by the FCA. I have no idea how they get round their upfront & exit charges.
Absolutely criminal.
You mean the FCA that regulates them more than any other Financial Advice provider in the country? You mean the SJP that is the largest collective of qualified advisers / chartered planners in the country.
Look, the EWC aspect should have gone long ago, I'll agree with you on that. However, now that the charging will be more easily comparable how are you going to explain to your clients that after all these years of telling clients how expensive SJP are you actually charge more than the average SJP client pays? The IFA community has done a good job of propagating myths around SJP and their charges. I thoroughly enjoy seeing IFA's squirm when I challenge potential clients to ask them to set out ALL of their charges in one place. It's time that IFA's started to face the scrutiny we did, the problem is that a high proportion of you wouldn't face up to that scrutiny.
I'd happily put my charges up against yours....oops, I mean SJP's.
OK cool, let's do it;
Initial Charges
We charge a maximum of 3%, average looks like it would be around the 2% mark for my business.
Ongoing Charges:
Depends on portfolio, but looking at the last couple of new clients they have been 1.62% - 1.67% PA
0.5% of this is currently Ongoing Advice Fee (My bit) and therefore can be turned off.
Re Pensions I suspect we will do a lot of new business at 1-2% initial charge (Depending on size) and I believe the ongoing will be a tad higher, we will soon see.
We don't charge any additional fees whatsoever.
I love the arrogance of the "sorry, SJP's". You do all of your own investment work do you? No external managers / fund houses doing the work for you I hope? Otherwise, that's a little hypocritical don't you think?
Your turn.
Actually mine are rather similar, but then I'm whole of market rather than restricted, which is the real advantage over SJP. Its not the fund "picking" as I agree, the FCA don't wont FA's to be picking funds and would prefer them to be in a "managed" portfolio that is aligned to their Attitude to Risk. The company I work for (Quilter) run their own Platform and managed Portfolios, but I can go outside of both and recommend any Platform, Product or Fund. I have clients with Fidelity, Aegon, Scottish Widows, Royal London, Standard life, Prudential, LV, Aviva.........
As for charges - like you my initial charge starts at 3% but is usually 2.5% or even lower. For CL's I usually do a special deal if I am transferring funds from one product/platform/provider to another. My ongoing charge, again, is like yours at 0.5% but I have clients paying 0.3% or even 0.25% (but they have over £1m under management). The big difference is the Product Charges. I believe "your" 3% comes out of the 5% (for ISA's) or 6% (Pensions) - so that then leaves 2%-3% to cover other "charges". Most clients I have are paying a Platform/Provider charge of less than 0.5%pa - Quilter's Platform charge is around 0.2%-0.25% depending on the amount you have invested. Then funds charges are typically around 0.8%pa. Quilter have a range of managed portfolios that come in around 0.65%. If I am selecting individual funds I try to keep the whole charging structure (Product/funds/adviser) to below 1.5%pa. Royal London's Drawdown Pension has a capped 1% charge, with that coming down to 0.40% if you have over £250k invested. With that you can have a number of their Governed Portfolios at no extra cost - so you could get a Drawdown Pension paying just 0.4%pa for the Product AND the funds -can you do that for your clients ? No. Because you can only "advise" on SJP products. And that's the big difference. Its not just the charges but the range of Providers and Funds that a Whole of Market adviser can offer.
I've never used SJP so can't comment on how good or indifferent the advisors are.
But my issue (and why I'd never use them) is two fold:
1. They aren't independent and therefore severely restrict what investments would be available to me. 2. Their charges are in my view high and the added restrictions.
I just don't know why anyone would use them if I'm honest, maybe someone can explain?
Whilst It may be negotiable, from their website:
Pensions:
4.5% of fund value for the initial advice, especially as they also state 1.5% Product Charge. So 6% initial charge, that is daylight robbery no matter how you dress it up.
1% Product Charge Annually (waived if you stay their for 6 years), Year 7 to 10 1%, 10 onwards 0.85%
Additional charge for "managing and maintaining your underlying investments. These depend on the funds you choose to invest in."
So please can someone explain how those charges for a very restricted investment pool are even remotely reasonable? Why should I move my £1m pension pot (as an example) to them and pay over £60k to do so?
ISA's:
Again, 4.5% initial advice charge, plus a 0.5% product charge, say goodbye to 5% of your money on day 1. Annual 0.5% advice charge plus fund charges so they estimate between 1.6 and 1.9%.
Anyone thinking of using SJP, a non independent financial advising firm, need to give their head a very big wobble, or am I missing something, are their investments and advisors so good that they are better than the 5,001 other investment funds and advisors out there?
Well, much like the wider marker there are good, bad and indifferent quality advisers.
1. OK so the starting point is whole-of-market, then Investment companies narrow that down. The only difference at SJP is that process happens earlier and therefore is undertaken by the specialists as opposed to most IFA's that likes to play fund manager or simply farm it out. Do you really think the average IFA has the skills and resources to fully assess and continue to monitor each and all of the options available? No, they simply farm it out to an external manager to do it.
2. Then where is your criticism of the rest of the big players? SJP is in the bottom quartile of charges compared to the big players and about half way when you take into account the smaller players. The charges are only high compared with doing it yourself. If you have the time, skills and inclination to do it yourself then great! That doesn't make the charging structure expensive.
Re Charges, you have based your entire view on the MAXIMUM that an SJP Partner is able to charge. By the same logic, if an IFA's network doesn't set out a maximum for them to abide by I can say "oh well I wont use them because they could charge me 10% upfront."
I have NEVER charged 5% on an ISA contribution, the most i've every charged is 3% although often we will do it at 0% if for example we are doing a pension transfer. The average charged by SJP Partners on ISA's I believe is around 2.5%.
Re Pensions, as you would have seen that will be gone in just over a year. It shouldn't really have been allowed given that it was outlawed for IFAs' and therefore i support the changes. With that said, I have a lot of longstanding clients who, because the pension remained after 6 years, paid 0% initial charges.
Finally, you are only comparing against our core IMA products. Especially for larger investments we will use our discretionary fund manager arm which is whole-of-market and I've seem them do some really cool stuff.
The reality is that no one company is 'the best'. People would judge that on different metrics, naturally. If we ignore the 90% of commentary on SJP, which is either marketing material or IFA's myths, and focus on the facts the client outcomes simply do not match the nonsense spewed. Finally, even if it were all true, if SJP were the most expensive, worst performing, worst service, then how bad is the rest of the industry for SJP to be the biggest provider in the UK?
I'm not suggesting that SJP shouldn't be heavily scrutinised, however we simply do not see this scrutiny of other providers. Why? Because if your task is to get engagement on your website and clicks, you write about SJP and not an IFA Practice.
1. Are you really trying to suggest SJP have looked at the whole of market and 'narrowed it down'. The only investment funds available are SJP one's aren't they? It's tied to your own funds, much like a Vanguard isn't it? I'd expect an IFA to have access pretty much to the whole of market. There's nothing wrong with say a company that has heir own funds, I use Vanguard, but don't try and dress it up as if SJP have picked the best anymore than Vanguard have.
2. I've used and known a lot of IFA's over the years, none have ever come close to the charges SJP quote. I'd argue that those IFA's likely demand a higher fee as they aren't just selling/advising on a very limited product range.
Can you show SJP's fee's being in the bottom quartile? As I say I've never found anyone who's (quoted) charges are higher than yours.
On that front, with respect, nothing on the website says anything about the charges being a maximum, it states that's what the charges are.......... as an example https://www.sjp.co.uk/charges/pensions-charges
What proof have you that SJP is scrutinised more than anyone else you're all regulated aren't you? If the regulator is taking more interest in SJP that may be for different reasons.
In my view, biggest is very rarely best, SJP are successful due to good marketing and sales technics, you used an analogy on McDonalds (for a different reason), do McDonalds provide the best product, i.e. burgers? I think we'd all agree not, but they are successful/the largest for other reasons than the product itself, much like SJP.
I've not read anything that would suggest a reason to chose SJP over anyone else, to the contrary, and you've not really come up with anything TBH, other than the charges aren't really as high as advertised.
I'd love to hear from someone who actually does use SJP as to why the chose them and why they continue to be their advisors, I'm yet to find anyone who can really give an answer to that (I've worked with numbers of people over the years who have used SJP).
A tad worrying as I’ve just invested with St James’s Place. I’ve forwarded this link to my Financial Advisor or as they seem to call themselves now Wealth Advisors. I will let you know what he says.
SJP really should be investigated by the FCA. I have no idea how they get round their upfront & exit charges.
Absolutely criminal.
You mean the FCA that regulates them more than any other Financial Advice provider in the country? You mean the SJP that is the largest collective of qualified advisers / chartered planners in the country.
Look, the EWC aspect should have gone long ago, I'll agree with you on that. However, now that the charging will be more easily comparable how are you going to explain to your clients that after all these years of telling clients how expensive SJP are you actually charge more than the average SJP client pays? The IFA community has done a good job of propagating myths around SJP and their charges. I thoroughly enjoy seeing IFA's squirm when I challenge potential clients to ask them to set out ALL of their charges in one place. It's time that IFA's started to face the scrutiny we did, the problem is that a high proportion of you wouldn't face up to that scrutiny.
I'd happily put my charges up against yours....oops, I mean SJP's.
OK cool, let's do it;
Initial Charges
We charge a maximum of 3%, average looks like it would be around the 2% mark for my business.
Ongoing Charges:
Depends on portfolio, but looking at the last couple of new clients they have been 1.62% - 1.67% PA
0.5% of this is currently Ongoing Advice Fee (My bit) and therefore can be turned off.
Re Pensions I suspect we will do a lot of new business at 1-2% initial charge (Depending on size) and I believe the ongoing will be a tad higher, we will soon see.
We don't charge any additional fees whatsoever.
I love the arrogance of the "sorry, SJP's". You do all of your own investment work do you? No external managers / fund houses doing the work for you I hope? Otherwise, that's a little hypocritical don't you think?
Your turn.
Actually mine are rather similar, but then I'm whole of market rather than restricted, which is the real advantage over SJP. Its not the fund "picking" as I agree, the FCA don't wont FA's to be picking funds and would prefer them to be in a "managed" portfolio that is aligned to their Attitude to Risk. The company I work for (Quilter) run their own Platform and managed Portfolios, but I can go outside of both and recommend any Platform, Product or Fund. I have clients with Fidelity, Aegon, Scottish Widows, Royal London, Standard life, Prudential, LV, Aviva.........
As for charges - like you my initial charge starts at 3% but is usually 2.5% or even lower. For CL's I usually do a special deal if I am transferring funds from one product/platform/provider to another. My ongoing charge, again, is like yours at 0.5% but I have clients paying 0.3% or even 0.25% (but they have over £1m under management). The big difference is the Product Charges. I believe "your" 3% comes out of the 5% (for ISA's) or 6% (Pensions) - so that then leaves 2%-3% to cover other "charges". Most clients I have are paying a Platform/Provider charge of less than 0.5%pa - Quilter's Platform charge is around 0.2%-0.25% depending on the amount you have invested. Then funds charges are typically around 0.8%pa. Quilter have a range of managed portfolios that come in around 0.65%. If I am selecting individual funds I try to keep the whole charging structure (Product/funds/adviser) to below 1.5%pa. Royal London's Drawdown Pension has a capped 1% charge, with that coming down to 0.40% if you have over £250k invested. With that you can have a number of their Governed Portfolios at no extra cost - so you could get a Drawdown Pension paying just 0.4%pa for the Product AND the funds -can you do that for your clients ? No. Because you can only "advise" on SJP products. And that's the big difference. Its not just the charges but the range of Providers and Funds that a Whole of Market adviser can offer.
You've just proven that you often try and hammer SJP for charges, when you don't understand the charges. That's highly unprofessional.
I've just set out what my last 2 investment clients are actually paying IN TOTAL. I.e. 3% Initial / 1.62% and 1.67 PA Ongoing in Total.
I.e. All Platform, Advice and Fund Manger charges included.
What I'd hoped for would that you would set out clearly an example of what your charges are. A lot of waffle, but very little data.
It's a separate discussion regarding what you actually get for what you pay, but you are just yet another IFA spouting nonsense about how expensive SJP are without bothering to actually find out what the charges are.
I don't simply throw all my clients into the core products, if I want to access the 13,000 or whatever there are funds in the UK I use our discretionary arm. Again, my point of challenge is the various comments about charges. None of which are ever backed up with data.
I've never used SJP so can't comment on how good or indifferent the advisors are.
But my issue (and why I'd never use them) is two fold:
1. They aren't independent and therefore severely restrict what investments would be available to me. 2. Their charges are in my view high and the added restrictions.
I just don't know why anyone would use them if I'm honest, maybe someone can explain?
Whilst It may be negotiable, from their website:
Pensions:
4.5% of fund value for the initial advice, especially as they also state 1.5% Product Charge. So 6% initial charge, that is daylight robbery no matter how you dress it up.
1% Product Charge Annually (waived if you stay their for 6 years), Year 7 to 10 1%, 10 onwards 0.85%
Additional charge for "managing and maintaining your underlying investments. These depend on the funds you choose to invest in."
So please can someone explain how those charges for a very restricted investment pool are even remotely reasonable? Why should I move my £1m pension pot (as an example) to them and pay over £60k to do so?
ISA's:
Again, 4.5% initial advice charge, plus a 0.5% product charge, say goodbye to 5% of your money on day 1. Annual 0.5% advice charge plus fund charges so they estimate between 1.6 and 1.9%.
Anyone thinking of using SJP, a non independent financial advising firm, need to give their head a very big wobble, or am I missing something, are their investments and advisors so good that they are better than the 5,001 other investment funds and advisors out there?
Well, much like the wider marker there are good, bad and indifferent quality advisers.
1. OK so the starting point is whole-of-market, then Investment companies narrow that down. The only difference at SJP is that process happens earlier and therefore is undertaken by the specialists as opposed to most IFA's that likes to play fund manager or simply farm it out. Do you really think the average IFA has the skills and resources to fully assess and continue to monitor each and all of the options available? No, they simply farm it out to an external manager to do it.
2. Then where is your criticism of the rest of the big players? SJP is in the bottom quartile of charges compared to the big players and about half way when you take into account the smaller players. The charges are only high compared with doing it yourself. If you have the time, skills and inclination to do it yourself then great! That doesn't make the charging structure expensive.
Re Charges, you have based your entire view on the MAXIMUM that an SJP Partner is able to charge. By the same logic, if an IFA's network doesn't set out a maximum for them to abide by I can say "oh well I wont use them because they could charge me 10% upfront."
I have NEVER charged 5% on an ISA contribution, the most i've every charged is 3% although often we will do it at 0% if for example we are doing a pension transfer. The average charged by SJP Partners on ISA's I believe is around 2.5%.
Re Pensions, as you would have seen that will be gone in just over a year. It shouldn't really have been allowed given that it was outlawed for IFAs' and therefore i support the changes. With that said, I have a lot of longstanding clients who, because the pension remained after 6 years, paid 0% initial charges.
Finally, you are only comparing against our core IMA products. Especially for larger investments we will use our discretionary fund manager arm which is whole-of-market and I've seem them do some really cool stuff.
The reality is that no one company is 'the best'. People would judge that on different metrics, naturally. If we ignore the 90% of commentary on SJP, which is either marketing material or IFA's myths, and focus on the facts the client outcomes simply do not match the nonsense spewed. Finally, even if it were all true, if SJP were the most expensive, worst performing, worst service, then how bad is the rest of the industry for SJP to be the biggest provider in the UK?
I'm not suggesting that SJP shouldn't be heavily scrutinised, however we simply do not see this scrutiny of other providers. Why? Because if your task is to get engagement on your website and clicks, you write about SJP and not an IFA Practice.
1. Are you really trying to suggest SJP have looked at the whole of market and 'narrowed it down'. The only investment funds available are SJP one's aren't they? It's tied to your own funds, much like a Vanguard isn't it? I'd expect an IFA to have access pretty much to the whole of market. There's nothing wrong with say a company that has heir own funds, I use Vanguard, but don't try and dress it up as if SJP have picked the best anymore than Vanguard have.
2. I've used and known a lot of IFA's over the years, none have ever come close to the charges SJP quote. I'd argue that those IFA's likely demand a higher fee as they aren't just selling/advising on a very limited product range.
Can you show SJP's fee's being in the bottom quartile? As I say I've never found anyone who's (quoted) charges are higher than yours.
On that front, with respect, nothing on the website says anything about the charges being a maximum, it states that's what the charges are.......... as an example https://www.sjp.co.uk/charges/pensions-charges
What proof have you that SJP is scrutinised more than anyone else you're all regulated aren't you? If the regulator is taking more interest in SJP that may be for different reasons.
In my view, biggest is very rarely best, SJP are successful due to good marketing and sales technics, you used an analogy on McDonalds (for a different reason), do McDonalds provide the best product, i.e. burgers? I think we'd all agree not, but they are successful/the largest for other reasons than the product itself, much like SJP.
I've not read anything that would suggest a reason to chose SJP over anyone else, to the contrary, and you've not really come up with anything TBH, other than the charges aren't really as high as advertised.
I'd love to hear from someone who actually does use SJP as to why the chose them and why they continue to be their advisors, I'm yet to find anyone who can really give an answer to that (I've worked with numbers of people over the years who have used SJP).
1. No that's not my point. My point is that when choosing which fund manage is appropriate for your investment, the starting point would be "OK who are out there" then you'd narrow it down to whom you feel is best for whatever you are trying to achieve. I'm simply saying that the restricted model isn't for everyone, but that from a process perspective we are simply outsourcing that to SJP to select from the wider market who to manage each of the specific funds on our behalf. I'm not suggesting they are the best, i don't believe that any one fund manager house is the 'best' and that why the SJP model is to not employ any fund managers, but to select from the wider market and use as appropriate. Again, if access to the whole of market is important for a client then I simple use our discretionary arm which is whole of market and highly bespoke.
2. Because you are comparing against the maximum SJP charge. I agree with you that it should be clearer, but I'm telling you as someone whom has never charged the maximum fees quoted on the investment side and having seen the data, that the actual charges levied are far higher. SJP set the range and each practice aligned with them have the full flexibility to charge as they see fit within that range. Such as for example 0% initial.
EY undertook a thorough comparison against the big players about a year ago.
I'm not really trying to argue for SJP being better, the best etc, that's just meaningless. I'm just taking issue with the constant lies about them, it all gets a bit tiresome.
Re FCA, we represent 15% of the regulated advisers in the market. Where do you think the FCA start their job when they want to roll out changes...
As with any other firm, most people don't choose SJP, they choose the Adviser. If 15% of them are linked to SJP then a lot of clients will end up at SJP. They stay because they are happy with the service, pleased with the returns and see value in the advice they are being given. If I moved to an IFA network tomorrow, I'd take every single one of my clients with me.
I've never used SJP so can't comment on how good or indifferent the advisors are.
But my issue (and why I'd never use them) is two fold:
1. They aren't independent and therefore severely restrict what investments would be available to me. 2. Their charges are in my view high and the added restrictions.
I just don't know why anyone would use them if I'm honest, maybe someone can explain?
Whilst It may be negotiable, from their website:
Pensions:
4.5% of fund value for the initial advice, especially as they also state 1.5% Product Charge. So 6% initial charge, that is daylight robbery no matter how you dress it up.
1% Product Charge Annually (waived if you stay their for 6 years), Year 7 to 10 1%, 10 onwards 0.85%
Additional charge for "managing and maintaining your underlying investments. These depend on the funds you choose to invest in."
So please can someone explain how those charges for a very restricted investment pool are even remotely reasonable? Why should I move my £1m pension pot (as an example) to them and pay over £60k to do so?
ISA's:
Again, 4.5% initial advice charge, plus a 0.5% product charge, say goodbye to 5% of your money on day 1. Annual 0.5% advice charge plus fund charges so they estimate between 1.6 and 1.9%.
Anyone thinking of using SJP, a non independent financial advising firm, need to give their head a very big wobble, or am I missing something, are their investments and advisors so good that they are better than the 5,001 other investment funds and advisors out there?
Well, much like the wider marker there are good, bad and indifferent quality advisers.
1. OK so the starting point is whole-of-market, then Investment companies narrow that down. The only difference at SJP is that process happens earlier and therefore is undertaken by the specialists as opposed to most IFA's that likes to play fund manager or simply farm it out. Do you really think the average IFA has the skills and resources to fully assess and continue to monitor each and all of the options available? No, they simply farm it out to an external manager to do it.
2. Then where is your criticism of the rest of the big players? SJP is in the bottom quartile of charges compared to the big players and about half way when you take into account the smaller players. The charges are only high compared with doing it yourself. If you have the time, skills and inclination to do it yourself then great! That doesn't make the charging structure expensive.
Re Charges, you have based your entire view on the MAXIMUM that an SJP Partner is able to charge. By the same logic, if an IFA's network doesn't set out a maximum for them to abide by I can say "oh well I wont use them because they could charge me 10% upfront."
I have NEVER charged 5% on an ISA contribution, the most i've every charged is 3% although often we will do it at 0% if for example we are doing a pension transfer. The average charged by SJP Partners on ISA's I believe is around 2.5%.
Re Pensions, as you would have seen that will be gone in just over a year. It shouldn't really have been allowed given that it was outlawed for IFAs' and therefore i support the changes. With that said, I have a lot of longstanding clients who, because the pension remained after 6 years, paid 0% initial charges.
Finally, you are only comparing against our core IMA products. Especially for larger investments we will use our discretionary fund manager arm which is whole-of-market and I've seem them do some really cool stuff.
The reality is that no one company is 'the best'. People would judge that on different metrics, naturally. If we ignore the 90% of commentary on SJP, which is either marketing material or IFA's myths, and focus on the facts the client outcomes simply do not match the nonsense spewed. Finally, even if it were all true, if SJP were the most expensive, worst performing, worst service, then how bad is the rest of the industry for SJP to be the biggest provider in the UK?
I'm not suggesting that SJP shouldn't be heavily scrutinised, however we simply do not see this scrutiny of other providers. Why? Because if your task is to get engagement on your website and clicks, you write about SJP and not an IFA Practice.
1. Are you really trying to suggest SJP have looked at the whole of market and 'narrowed it down'. The only investment funds available are SJP one's aren't they? It's tied to your own funds, much like a Vanguard isn't it? I'd expect an IFA to have access pretty much to the whole of market. There's nothing wrong with say a company that has heir own funds, I use Vanguard, but don't try and dress it up as if SJP have picked the best anymore than Vanguard have.
2. I've used and known a lot of IFA's over the years, none have ever come close to the charges SJP quote. I'd argue that those IFA's likely demand a higher fee as they aren't just selling/advising on a very limited product range.
Can you show SJP's fee's being in the bottom quartile? As I say I've never found anyone who's (quoted) charges are higher than yours.
On that front, with respect, nothing on the website says anything about the charges being a maximum, it states that's what the charges are.......... as an example https://www.sjp.co.uk/charges/pensions-charges
What proof have you that SJP is scrutinised more than anyone else you're all regulated aren't you? If the regulator is taking more interest in SJP that may be for different reasons.
In my view, biggest is very rarely best, SJP are successful due to good marketing and sales technics, you used an analogy on McDonalds (for a different reason), do McDonalds provide the best product, i.e. burgers? I think we'd all agree not, but they are successful/the largest for other reasons than the product itself, much like SJP.
I've not read anything that would suggest a reason to chose SJP over anyone else, to the contrary, and you've not really come up with anything TBH, other than the charges aren't really as high as advertised.
I'd love to hear from someone who actually does use SJP as to why the chose them and why they continue to be their advisors, I'm yet to find anyone who can really give an answer to that (I've worked with numbers of people over the years who have used SJP).
1. No that's not my point. My point is that when choosing which fund manage is appropriate for your investment, the starting point would be "OK who are out there" then you'd narrow it down to whom you feel is best for whatever you are trying to achieve. I'm simply saying that the restricted model isn't for everyone, but that from a process perspective we are simply outsourcing that to SJP to select from the wider market who to manage each of the specific funds on our behalf. I'm not suggesting they are the best, i don't believe that any one fund manager house is the 'best' and that why the SJP model is to not employ any fund managers, but to select from the wider market and use as appropriate. Again, if access to the whole of market is important for a client then I simple use our discretionary arm which is whole of market and highly bespoke.
2. Because you are comparing against the maximum SJP charge. I agree with you that it should be clearer, but I'm telling you as someone whom has never charged the maximum fees quoted on the investment side and having seen the data, that the actual charges levied are far higher. SJP set the range and each practice aligned with them have the full flexibility to charge as they see fit within that range. Such as for example 0% initial.
EY undertook a thorough comparison against the big players about a year ago.
I'm not really trying to argue for SJP being better, the best etc, that's just meaningless. I'm just taking issue with the constant lies about them, it all gets a bit tiresome.
Re FCA, we represent 15% of the regulated advisers in the market. Where do you think the FCA start their job when they want to roll out changes...
As with any other firm, most people don't choose SJP, they choose the Adviser. If 15% of them are linked to SJP then a lot of clients will end up at SJP. They stay because they are happy with the service, pleased with the returns and see value in the advice they are being given. If I moved to an IFA network tomorrow, I'd take every single one of my clients with me.
1. You said "The only difference at SJP is that process happens earlier and therefore is undertaken by the specialists" - it isn't is it. You have a selection of your own funds. No one at SJP has gone through the whole of market and narrowed it down. As an example Fidelity has done that (and I'm sure others do), SJP hasn't. They simply have their own funds.
I've no issue with a restricted model (In a way I use it myself with Vanguard), my issue is the charging is at or above the level of a non restricted model. Just my prediction, but within 10 years an SJP model will be no longer as technology takes over.
2. Interesting, an SJP advisor agreeing the fee's aren't clear! To the contrary i'd say they are very clearly laid out. The issue is we all know why don't we. Some mug punters will just accept they are what they are quoted and will pay the ridiculous so called 'maximum' fee's. You stated your fee's are in the bottom 25%, can you provide evidence to that effect? Is there a comparison of other restricted firms to SJP's fee's?
"I'm just taking issue with the constant lies about them, it all gets a bit tiresome." - I've not seen any lies about SJP?
You know better than me, but I struggle to see a member of the public choosing an advisor without knowledge of SJP and ending up there?
Re FCA, so you're proportionately scrutinised based on size? I work for the largest broker in the world so feel your pain, but it's not being more scrutinised (i.e. singled out).
I just struggle to see why anyone would choose SJP, nothing you've said has been as to why anyone should (over A N Other tied agent).
FWIW, if you want financial advice on Pensions or ISA's see an independent financial advisor, ideally by recommendation, anything else is restricting your options. If you are happy to restrict those options then don't pay IFA sized fee's, there's no need and many other options out there.
I've never used SJP so can't comment on how good or indifferent the advisors are.
But my issue (and why I'd never use them) is two fold:
1. They aren't independent and therefore severely restrict what investments would be available to me. 2. Their charges are in my view high and the added restrictions.
I just don't know why anyone would use them if I'm honest, maybe someone can explain?
Whilst It may be negotiable, from their website:
Pensions:
4.5% of fund value for the initial advice, especially as they also state 1.5% Product Charge. So 6% initial charge, that is daylight robbery no matter how you dress it up.
1% Product Charge Annually (waived if you stay their for 6 years), Year 7 to 10 1%, 10 onwards 0.85%
Additional charge for "managing and maintaining your underlying investments. These depend on the funds you choose to invest in."
So please can someone explain how those charges for a very restricted investment pool are even remotely reasonable? Why should I move my £1m pension pot (as an example) to them and pay over £60k to do so?
ISA's:
Again, 4.5% initial advice charge, plus a 0.5% product charge, say goodbye to 5% of your money on day 1. Annual 0.5% advice charge plus fund charges so they estimate between 1.6 and 1.9%.
Anyone thinking of using SJP, a non independent financial advising firm, need to give their head a very big wobble, or am I missing something, are their investments and advisors so good that they are better than the 5,001 other investment funds and advisors out there?
Well, much like the wider marker there are good, bad and indifferent quality advisers.
1. OK so the starting point is whole-of-market, then Investment companies narrow that down. The only difference at SJP is that process happens earlier and therefore is undertaken by the specialists as opposed to most IFA's that likes to play fund manager or simply farm it out. Do you really think the average IFA has the skills and resources to fully assess and continue to monitor each and all of the options available? No, they simply farm it out to an external manager to do it.
2. Then where is your criticism of the rest of the big players? SJP is in the bottom quartile of charges compared to the big players and about half way when you take into account the smaller players. The charges are only high compared with doing it yourself. If you have the time, skills and inclination to do it yourself then great! That doesn't make the charging structure expensive.
Re Charges, you have based your entire view on the MAXIMUM that an SJP Partner is able to charge. By the same logic, if an IFA's network doesn't set out a maximum for them to abide by I can say "oh well I wont use them because they could charge me 10% upfront."
I have NEVER charged 5% on an ISA contribution, the most i've every charged is 3% although often we will do it at 0% if for example we are doing a pension transfer. The average charged by SJP Partners on ISA's I believe is around 2.5%.
Re Pensions, as you would have seen that will be gone in just over a year. It shouldn't really have been allowed given that it was outlawed for IFAs' and therefore i support the changes. With that said, I have a lot of longstanding clients who, because the pension remained after 6 years, paid 0% initial charges.
Finally, you are only comparing against our core IMA products. Especially for larger investments we will use our discretionary fund manager arm which is whole-of-market and I've seem them do some really cool stuff.
The reality is that no one company is 'the best'. People would judge that on different metrics, naturally. If we ignore the 90% of commentary on SJP, which is either marketing material or IFA's myths, and focus on the facts the client outcomes simply do not match the nonsense spewed. Finally, even if it were all true, if SJP were the most expensive, worst performing, worst service, then how bad is the rest of the industry for SJP to be the biggest provider in the UK?
I'm not suggesting that SJP shouldn't be heavily scrutinised, however we simply do not see this scrutiny of other providers. Why? Because if your task is to get engagement on your website and clicks, you write about SJP and not an IFA Practice.
1. Are you really trying to suggest SJP have looked at the whole of market and 'narrowed it down'. The only investment funds available are SJP one's aren't they? It's tied to your own funds, much like a Vanguard isn't it? I'd expect an IFA to have access pretty much to the whole of market. There's nothing wrong with say a company that has heir own funds, I use Vanguard, but don't try and dress it up as if SJP have picked the best anymore than Vanguard have.
2. I've used and known a lot of IFA's over the years, none have ever come close to the charges SJP quote. I'd argue that those IFA's likely demand a higher fee as they aren't just selling/advising on a very limited product range.
Can you show SJP's fee's being in the bottom quartile? As I say I've never found anyone who's (quoted) charges are higher than yours.
On that front, with respect, nothing on the website says anything about the charges being a maximum, it states that's what the charges are.......... as an example https://www.sjp.co.uk/charges/pensions-charges
What proof have you that SJP is scrutinised more than anyone else you're all regulated aren't you? If the regulator is taking more interest in SJP that may be for different reasons.
In my view, biggest is very rarely best, SJP are successful due to good marketing and sales technics, you used an analogy on McDonalds (for a different reason), do McDonalds provide the best product, i.e. burgers? I think we'd all agree not, but they are successful/the largest for other reasons than the product itself, much like SJP.
I've not read anything that would suggest a reason to chose SJP over anyone else, to the contrary, and you've not really come up with anything TBH, other than the charges aren't really as high as advertised.
I'd love to hear from someone who actually does use SJP as to why the chose them and why they continue to be their advisors, I'm yet to find anyone who can really give an answer to that (I've worked with numbers of people over the years who have used SJP).
1. No that's not my point. My point is that when choosing which fund manage is appropriate for your investment, the starting point would be "OK who are out there" then you'd narrow it down to whom you feel is best for whatever you are trying to achieve. I'm simply saying that the restricted model isn't for everyone, but that from a process perspective we are simply outsourcing that to SJP to select from the wider market who to manage each of the specific funds on our behalf. I'm not suggesting they are the best, i don't believe that any one fund manager house is the 'best' and that why the SJP model is to not employ any fund managers, but to select from the wider market and use as appropriate. Again, if access to the whole of market is important for a client then I simple use our discretionary arm which is whole of market and highly bespoke.
2. Because you are comparing against the maximum SJP charge. I agree with you that it should be clearer, but I'm telling you as someone whom has never charged the maximum fees quoted on the investment side and having seen the data, that the actual charges levied are far higher. SJP set the range and each practice aligned with them have the full flexibility to charge as they see fit within that range. Such as for example 0% initial.
EY undertook a thorough comparison against the big players about a year ago.
I'm not really trying to argue for SJP being better, the best etc, that's just meaningless. I'm just taking issue with the constant lies about them, it all gets a bit tiresome.
Re FCA, we represent 15% of the regulated advisers in the market. Where do you think the FCA start their job when they want to roll out changes...
As with any other firm, most people don't choose SJP, they choose the Adviser. If 15% of them are linked to SJP then a lot of clients will end up at SJP. They stay because they are happy with the service, pleased with the returns and see value in the advice they are being given. If I moved to an IFA network tomorrow, I'd take every single one of my clients with me.
1. You said "The only difference at SJP is that process happens earlier and therefore is undertaken by the specialists" - it isn't is it. You have a selection of your own funds. No one at SJP has gone through the whole of market and narrowed it down. As an example Fidelity has done that (and I'm sure others do), SJP hasn't. They simply have their own funds.
I've no issue with a restricted model (In a way I use it myself with Vanguard), my issue is the charging is at or above the level of a non restricted model. Just my prediction, but within 10 years an SJP model will be no longer as technology takes over.
2. Interesting, an SJP advisor agreeing the fee's aren't clear! To the contrary i'd say they are very clearly laid out. The issue is we all know why don't we. Some mug punters will just accept they are what they are quoted and will pay the ridiculous so called 'maximum' fee's. You stated your fee's are in the bottom 25%, can you provide evidence to that effect? Is there a comparison of other restricted firms to SJP's fee's?
"I'm just taking issue with the constant lies about them, it all gets a bit tiresome." - I've not seen any lies about SJP?
You know better than me, but I struggle to see a member of the public choosing an advisor without knowledge of SJP and ending up there?
Re FCA, so you're proportionately scrutinised based on size? I work for the largest broker in the world so feel your pain, but it's not being more scrutinised (i.e. singled out).
I just struggle to see why anyone would choose SJP, nothing you've said has been as to why anyone should (over A N Other tied agent).
FWIW, if you want financial advice on Pensions or ISA's see an independent financial advisor, ideally by recommendation, anything else is restricting your options. If you are happy to restrict those options then don't pay IFA sized fee's, there's no need and many other options out there.
1. They simply have their own fund...for their core Investment Management Approach products yes. Again, this completely ignores the fact that we have the Whole-of-Market arm to the business. What I'm referring to is the comparison against most IFA's. The key difference between a restricted model and "independent" model is at what point that funnelling process occurs and by whom.
2. No, I'm saying that it could be clearer that that's the maximum charge payable, What i'd like to see is the regulator force companies to set out the average that they charge clients, not a meaningless example or maximum. If you look at any of the fully-managed options on the market it's almost impossible as a layperson to clearly see what they would pay as a client. I put the blame for this at the door of the regulator. I agree that some will pay more than they need to, but thats true of any firm, not simply SJP. Try and locate the EY report. The crux is that if you want a fully managed service you can expect to pay about 2% PA on average all in. If you don't want a fully managed service, then great. But in comparison with their peers SJP simply aren't expensive.
You simply need to search SJP in google and look at the weekly stream of misinformation from the likes of Yodelar (who are basically con artists). This wouldn't be an issue, but combine this with lazy journalism and you get the likes of FT and Money Marketing giving them credibility. Add in the constant nonsense that IFA write / talk about SJP and you suddenly have a nice flow of misinformation.
The FCA comment was because Golf Addick was talking about why the FCA haven't done anything about SJP. My point is merely that it's illogical to suggest that the FCA aren't up our backside permanently because of our size.
I'm not trying to convince you why someone would or wouldn't choose SJP, I don't need to. I simply would like to see a level playing field so that clients can choose whom to work with based on a clear and easy comparison against different providers supported by a a strong regulator and a healthy environment of journalism ensuring that it stays that way. What we have instead is a system of marketing funnels by con artists undermining the trust of one of the best markets for financial advice in the world. IFA's have sadly been a part of the issue in their actions.
You seem to have this romantic notion that if you go to an IFA you get someone who is looking at the whole of the market and recommending the most appropriate option for you. What I'm saying is that this is very rarely the case and if you were to look at the client bank of most IFA's you'll see a huge weighting towards one or two particular investment houses. I'm simply saying that is the reality of the IFA market (not the romantic notion of what it is) actually better? I'm not convinced.
St James place ARE NOT independent financial advisors. They are tied to St James Place. Believe the official term is restricted advice.
Personally I wouldn't touch them. Not saying the individuals are dodgy or anything, but why would you tie yourself to advice from someone effectively only selling products from the company that employs them?
My IFA is SJP and always liked the guy and given me good advice and helped with life insurance/critical illlness etc but he’s now being quite pushy about me investing in a VCT and I’m quite sceptical, looks very risky
Any IFA’s on here?
Your advisor is not Independent (The I in IFA).
I got my first mortgage through SJP and it was a Natwest product that they "sold" me.
Yes they do mortgage advice but aren't a lender themselves. No idea if they access whole of market.
If people are happy to use SJP then that's up to them, just be ware of at least the investment fee structure. Exit fee's, 4.5% initial investment fee etc.
Here is an example Rob, you just don’t see people spreading this level of information about other companies.
St James place ARE NOT independent financial advisors. They are tied to St James Place. Believe the official term is restricted advice.
Personally I wouldn't touch them. Not saying the individuals are dodgy or anything, but why would you tie yourself to advice from someone effectively only selling products from the company that employs them?
My IFA is SJP and always liked the guy and given me good advice and helped with life insurance/critical illlness etc but he’s now being quite pushy about me investing in a VCT and I’m quite sceptical, looks very risky
Any IFA’s on here?
Your advisor is not Independent (The I in IFA).
I got my first mortgage through SJP and it was a Natwest product that they "sold" me.
Yes they do mortgage advice but aren't a lender themselves. No idea if they access whole of market.
If people are happy to use SJP then that's up to them, just be ware of at least the investment fee structure. Exit fee's, 4.5% initial investment fee etc.
Here is an example Rob, you just don’t see people spreading this level of information about other companies.
What is wrong with any of that? Are the fee's wrong, is there not an exit fee? Are SJP a mortgage lender?
St James place ARE NOT independent financial advisors. They are tied to St James Place. Believe the official term is restricted advice.
Personally I wouldn't touch them. Not saying the individuals are dodgy or anything, but why would you tie yourself to advice from someone effectively only selling products from the company that employs them?
My IFA is SJP and always liked the guy and given me good advice and helped with life insurance/critical illlness etc but he’s now being quite pushy about me investing in a VCT and I’m quite sceptical, looks very risky
Any IFA’s on here?
Your advisor is not Independent (The I in IFA).
I got my first mortgage through SJP and it was a Natwest product that they "sold" me.
Yes they do mortgage advice but aren't a lender themselves. No idea if they access whole of market.
If people are happy to use SJP then that's up to them, just be ware of at least the investment fee structure. Exit fee's, 4.5% initial investment fee etc.
Here is an example Rob, you just don’t see people spreading this level of information about other companies.
What is wrong with any of that? Are the fee's wrong, is there not an exit fee? Are SJP a mortgage lender?
So SJP charge 4.5% Initial on Pensions and a Exit Penalty?
St James place ARE NOT independent financial advisors. They are tied to St James Place. Believe the official term is restricted advice.
Personally I wouldn't touch them. Not saying the individuals are dodgy or anything, but why would you tie yourself to advice from someone effectively only selling products from the company that employs them?
My IFA is SJP and always liked the guy and given me good advice and helped with life insurance/critical illlness etc but he’s now being quite pushy about me investing in a VCT and I’m quite sceptical, looks very risky
Any IFA’s on here?
Your advisor is not Independent (The I in IFA).
I got my first mortgage through SJP and it was a Natwest product that they "sold" me.
Yes they do mortgage advice but aren't a lender themselves. No idea if they access whole of market.
If people are happy to use SJP then that's up to them, just be ware of at least the investment fee structure. Exit fee's, 4.5% initial investment fee etc.
Here is an example Rob, you just don’t see people spreading this level of information about other companies.
What is wrong with any of that? Are the fee's wrong, is there not an exit fee? Are SJP a mortgage lender?
So SJP charge 4.5% Initial on Pensions and a Exit Penalty?
From SJP website:
Advice charges
We charge for our initial advice and for our ongoing advice. 4.5% of your initial investment will be used to pay for initial advice and an annual charge of 0.5% will be charged for the ongoing advice and the relationship with your adviser.
Product charges
There will be an initial product charge of 1.5% of your investment. There will also be an annual product management charge of 1% but this will be waived in the first 6 years for each investment. If you encash within the first 6 years of an investment there will be an early withdrawal charge of 1% of the value of your fund in respect of this investment. After 10 years, the annual product management charge will reduce from 1% to 0.85%.
So yes, according to your website the initial charge on Pensions is a fee of 4.5% (you could argue 6% if you add in the Product Charge) and whilst you may not call it an 'exit penalty' there is a 1% fee if you encash within the first 6 years, that's an exit fee however you dress it up.
As Jeff would say, unbelievable......... is it any wonder SJP get bad press when their own advisors don't know their advertised fee structure.
EDIT, so I give over my £1m pension to SJP which overnight becomes £940k due to the charges quoted, if I then smell the coffee and want to move it out to another provider you send me £930k. Bargain!
St James place ARE NOT independent financial advisors. They are tied to St James Place. Believe the official term is restricted advice.
Personally I wouldn't touch them. Not saying the individuals are dodgy or anything, but why would you tie yourself to advice from someone effectively only selling products from the company that employs them?
My IFA is SJP and always liked the guy and given me good advice and helped with life insurance/critical illlness etc but he’s now being quite pushy about me investing in a VCT and I’m quite sceptical, looks very risky
Any IFA’s on here?
Your advisor is not Independent (The I in IFA).
I got my first mortgage through SJP and it was a Natwest product that they "sold" me.
Yes they do mortgage advice but aren't a lender themselves. No idea if they access whole of market.
If people are happy to use SJP then that's up to them, just be ware of at least the investment fee structure. Exit fee's, 4.5% initial investment fee etc.
Here is an example Rob, you just don’t see people spreading this level of information about other companies.
What is wrong with any of that? Are the fee's wrong, is there not an exit fee? Are SJP a mortgage lender?
So SJP charge 4.5% Initial on Pensions and a Exit Penalty?
From SJP website:
Advice charges
We charge for our initial advice and for our ongoing advice. 4.5% of your initial investment will be used to pay for initial advice and an annual charge of 0.5% will be charged for the ongoing advice and the relationship with your adviser.
Product charges
There will be an initial product charge of 1.5% of your investment. There will also be an annual product management charge of 1% but this will be waived in the first 6 years for each investment. If you encash within the first 6 years of an investment there will be an early withdrawal charge of 1% of the value of your fund in respect of this investment. After 10 years, the annual product management charge will reduce from 1% to 0.85%.
So yes, according to your website the initial charge on Pensions is a fee of 4.5% (you could argue 6% if you add in the Product Charge) and whilst you may not call it an 'exit penalty' there is a 1% fee if you encash within the first 6 years, that's an exit fee however you dress it up.
As Jeff would say, unbelievable......... is it any wonder SJP get bad press when their own advisors don't know their advertised fee structure.
Haha so because you don't understand my question, that means i dont know the fee structure? Let's try again.
So, your understanding of what you have read on the SJP website lead you to believe that (Based on the maximum permissable charges to keep it simple) a client would pay 4.5% at the front end AND an exit penalty?
So lets for arguments sake say a client invested £100,000 into an SJP Pension. The way you've understood it is that £4,500 would be deducted at the front end and an exit penalty would apply? I just need to know how you've understood it, as it would explain a lot.
St James place ARE NOT independent financial advisors. They are tied to St James Place. Believe the official term is restricted advice.
Personally I wouldn't touch them. Not saying the individuals are dodgy or anything, but why would you tie yourself to advice from someone effectively only selling products from the company that employs them?
My IFA is SJP and always liked the guy and given me good advice and helped with life insurance/critical illlness etc but he’s now being quite pushy about me investing in a VCT and I’m quite sceptical, looks very risky
Any IFA’s on here?
Your advisor is not Independent (The I in IFA).
I got my first mortgage through SJP and it was a Natwest product that they "sold" me.
Yes they do mortgage advice but aren't a lender themselves. No idea if they access whole of market.
If people are happy to use SJP then that's up to them, just be ware of at least the investment fee structure. Exit fee's, 4.5% initial investment fee etc.
Here is an example Rob, you just don’t see people spreading this level of information about other companies.
What is wrong with any of that? Are the fee's wrong, is there not an exit fee? Are SJP a mortgage lender?
So SJP charge 4.5% Initial on Pensions and a Exit Penalty?
From SJP website:
Advice charges
We charge for our initial advice and for our ongoing advice. 4.5% of your initial investment will be used to pay for initial advice and an annual charge of 0.5% will be charged for the ongoing advice and the relationship with your adviser.
Product charges
There will be an initial product charge of 1.5% of your investment. There will also be an annual product management charge of 1% but this will be waived in the first 6 years for each investment. If you encash within the first 6 years of an investment there will be an early withdrawal charge of 1% of the value of your fund in respect of this investment. After 10 years, the annual product management charge will reduce from 1% to 0.85%.
So yes, according to your website the initial charge on Pensions is a fee of 4.5% (you could argue 6% if you add in the Product Charge) and whilst you may not call it an 'exit penalty' there is a 1% fee if you encash within the first 6 years, that's an exit fee however you dress it up.
As Jeff would say, unbelievable......... is it any wonder SJP get bad press when their own advisors don't know their advertised fee structure.
EDIT, so I give over my £1m pension to SJP which overnight becomes £940k due to the charges quoted, if I then smell the coffee and want to move it out to another provider you send me £930k. Bargain!
hahahahaha wow. OK now we understand why you don't get why anyone would use SJP. It's because you've misunderstood the charging structure.
In fairness, I will accept that it could be clearer and from 2025 it will be expressed the same way as the ISA / Investment side. (Even with that, people like golfaddick will try and misrepresent it)
If you had £1,000,000 pension transferred to SJP (and again lets assume full charges to keep it simple) every single penny of the Pension would be invested at the front-end. I.e. £100,000,000. If you were to leave during the 6 year period, then yes lets call a spade a spade an exit penalty would apply as follows;
Year 1: 6% Year 2: 5% Year 3: 4% Year 4: 3% Year 5: 2% Year 6: 1%
Thereafter 0%.
Therefore, people like the original poster who stayed for the first 6 years ended up paying no initial charges whatsoever.
Again, this will be gone by the end of 2024 (agree it should have been sooner) but you have clearly shown that you yourself are a mouthpiece of misinformation about a company it seems you've never even sat down with and considered their offering.
A tad worrying as I’ve just invested with St James’s Place. I’ve forwarded this link to my Financial Advisor or as they seem to call themselves now Wealth Advisors. I will let you know what he says.
SJP really should be investigated by the FCA. I have no idea how they get round their upfront & exit charges.
Absolutely criminal.
You mean the FCA that regulates them more than any other Financial Advice provider in the country? You mean the SJP that is the largest collective of qualified advisers / chartered planners in the country.
Look, the EWC aspect should have gone long ago, I'll agree with you on that. However, now that the charging will be more easily comparable how are you going to explain to your clients that after all these years of telling clients how expensive SJP are you actually charge more than the average SJP client pays? The IFA community has done a good job of propagating myths around SJP and their charges. I thoroughly enjoy seeing IFA's squirm when I challenge potential clients to ask them to set out ALL of their charges in one place. It's time that IFA's started to face the scrutiny we did, the problem is that a high proportion of you wouldn't face up to that scrutiny.
I'd happily put my charges up against yours....oops, I mean SJP's.
OK cool, let's do it;
Initial Charges
We charge a maximum of 3%, average looks like it would be around the 2% mark for my business.
Ongoing Charges:
Depends on portfolio, but looking at the last couple of new clients they have been 1.62% - 1.67% PA
0.5% of this is currently Ongoing Advice Fee (My bit) and therefore can be turned off.
Re Pensions I suspect we will do a lot of new business at 1-2% initial charge (Depending on size) and I believe the ongoing will be a tad higher, we will soon see.
We don't charge any additional fees whatsoever.
I love the arrogance of the "sorry, SJP's". You do all of your own investment work do you? No external managers / fund houses doing the work for you I hope? Otherwise, that's a little hypocritical don't you think?
Your turn.
Actually mine are rather similar, but then I'm whole of market rather than restricted, which is the real advantage over SJP. Its not the fund "picking" as I agree, the FCA don't wont FA's to be picking funds and would prefer them to be in a "managed" portfolio that is aligned to their Attitude to Risk. The company I work for (Quilter) run their own Platform and managed Portfolios, but I can go outside of both and recommend any Platform, Product or Fund. I have clients with Fidelity, Aegon, Scottish Widows, Royal London, Standard life, Prudential, LV, Aviva.........
As for charges - like you my initial charge starts at 3% but is usually 2.5% or even lower. For CL's I usually do a special deal if I am transferring funds from one product/platform/provider to another. My ongoing charge, again, is like yours at 0.5% but I have clients paying 0.3% or even 0.25% (but they have over £1m under management). The big difference is the Product Charges. I believe "your" 3% comes out of the 5% (for ISA's) or 6% (Pensions) - so that then leaves 2%-3% to cover other "charges". Most clients I have are paying a Platform/Provider charge of less than 0.5%pa - Quilter's Platform charge is around 0.2%-0.25% depending on the amount you have invested. Then funds charges are typically around 0.8%pa. Quilter have a range of managed portfolios that come in around 0.65%. If I am selecting individual funds I try to keep the whole charging structure (Product/funds/adviser) to below 1.5%pa. Royal London's Drawdown Pension has a capped 1% charge, with that coming down to 0.40% if you have over £250k invested. With that you can have a number of their Governed Portfolios at no extra cost - so you could get a Drawdown Pension paying just 0.4%pa for the Product AND the funds -can you do that for your clients ? No. Because you can only "advise" on SJP products. And that's the big difference. Its not just the charges but the range of Providers and Funds that a Whole of Market adviser can offer.
You've just proven that you often try and hammer SJP for charges, when you don't understand the charges. That's highly unprofessional.
I've just set out what my last 2 investment clients are actually paying IN TOTAL. I.e. 3% Initial / 1.62% and 1.67 PA Ongoing in Total.
I.e. All Platform, Advice and Fund Manger charges included.
What I'd hoped for would that you would set out clearly an example of what your charges are. A lot of waffle, but very little data.
It's a separate discussion regarding what you actually get for what you pay, but you are just yet another IFA spouting nonsense about how expensive SJP are without bothering to actually find out what the charges are.
I don't simply throw all my clients into the core products, if I want to access the 13,000 or whatever there are funds in the UK I use our discretionary arm. Again, my point of challenge is the various comments about charges. None of which are ever backed up with data.
I really don't want to get into a tit-for-tat discussions on the whys & wherefores of Restricted (in this case SJP) and Whole of Market. This thread was for a specific reason & we (well, you me & @Rob7Lee) have taken it off topic.
All I can say with my experience of SJP is that I have known 3 clients associated with them. 2 of them inherited funds from a deceased parent and on both occasions, when examining the paperwork, the client's couldn't or did not want to to cash in the investments because of the exit fees in place.
I think we should leave the final word with SJP themselves. Having seen their share price almost halve this year they announced last month that their charging structure is going to change. Not overnight, but over the next 18 months. They admitted in the press release that people had found it hard to compare their charges with other adviser firms/providers and will be, in future, splitting the charges down to the (now) normal 3 components Platform/Provider charges, fund charges and adviser fees. So in 2025 we can have another discussion once we know how these match up with the competition.
Comments
Yes, some of my funds have underperformed but my adviser rebalances my portfolio each year so that my portfolio is better positioned for the following year. I also have received numerous changes to fund managers throughout the year. At my review I also receive a cashflow modelling report, this tells me whether I am on track to achieve my retirement goals and is evidence based and stress tested in line with economic scenarios and my assets. I receive this as part of my 1.7% overall annual fee. So whilst SJP are at the higher end for charges my dealings with my adviser have been transparent and in my eyes value for money. He also offered detailed guidance on my lasting power of attorney saving me from visiting a solicitor which was very helpful.
Finally when I did my own research an IFA will often have 3 charges, these being a platform cost say 0.25%, a fund charge which could be if a tracker 0.25% or 1.00% for a multi manager fund and the IFA service fee which in my experience was between 0.75% to 1.00%. I found that I was regularly offered tracker funds as they are the cheapest option which I felt subsidised the IFA service. That is not to say that the performance of trackers has not been positive I simply preferred a more combined approach of investment styles.
In summary the cheapest option is to do it yourself, but I’m too busy and accept the costs of the service I receive and value it.
That said, if I was starting again now with the knowledge I've gleaned from teh advisor, I would probably self-invest in a tracker.
Yes, there are generally 3 types of charges (platform, fund, adviser) and I try to keep the total below 1.5%pa. The platform charge should decrease the more the fund grows, so that you should he paying no more than 0.2% once you have c£250k plus in there. Platforms also have the advantage of allowing the charge to amalgamate across different products as well as including all family members. If you & your spouse/partner have pensions & ISA's then having them on a platform could mean a big saving in charges.
We've just had a change in our fees (downwards) due to consumer duty but for me there hasn't been much change. My starting rate for an initial fee is 3%, but usually I can discount this down to 2.5% or even 2%. My ongoing service fee is usually 0.5%pa, but I do have clients paying just 0.25%pa, but then they have over £500k each in ISA's and total AUM of over £1.5m.
The main thing is you have to trust your adviser. If you do & you have an ongoing service that you are happy with then stick with them.
Yodelar are basically a scam outfit. From the very first email they send when you sign up, they lie about the FSCS status of other firms to scare potential clients. They offer 5 year performance comparisons when they haven't been in existence for 5 years haha!
Fisher Investments had some good info about them on their website Yodelar.com – Who They Are, What They Do, Don’t Do and What They Shouldn’t! | General | Fisher Investments UK
It's not a direct comparison for a DIY Platform with the likes of Vanguard for example. If you don't need the advice, then great, just go with one of those platforms.
It also creates much better succession & continuity planning so that, I had a period of ill health for example and was able to bring in another adviser to support in the short term with no disruption to the client or their arrangements. If I get hit by a bus my clients can handpick whom they want to deal with going forward.
There is a romantic notion about the quality and Independent nature of most IFA's, this often fades after being with said IFA for a while.
Look, the EWC aspect should have gone long ago, I'll agree with you on that. However, now that the charging will be more easily comparable how are you going to explain to your clients that after all these years of telling clients how expensive SJP are you actually charge more than the average SJP client pays? The IFA community has done a good job of propagating myths around SJP and their charges. I thoroughly enjoy seeing IFA's squirm when I challenge potential clients to ask them to set out ALL of their charges in one place. It's time that IFA's started to face the scrutiny we did, the problem is that a high proportion of you wouldn't face up to that scrutiny.
But my issue (and why I'd never use them) is two fold:
1. They aren't independent and therefore severely restrict what investments would be available to me.
2. Their charges are in my view high and the added restrictions.
I just don't know why anyone would use them if I'm honest, maybe someone can explain?
Whilst It may be negotiable, from their website:
Pensions:
4.5% of fund value for the initial advice, especially as they also state 1.5% Product Charge. So 6% initial charge, that is daylight robbery no matter how you dress it up.
1% Product Charge Annually (waived if you stay their for 6 years), Year 7 to 10 1%, 10 onwards 0.85%
Additional charge for "managing and maintaining your underlying investments. These depend on the funds you choose to invest in."
So please can someone explain how those charges for a very restricted investment pool are even remotely reasonable? Why should I move my £1m pension pot (as an example) to them and pay over £60k to do so?
ISA's:
Again, 4.5% initial advice charge, plus a 0.5% product charge, say goodbye to 5% of your money on day 1.
Annual 0.5% advice charge plus fund charges so they estimate between 1.6 and 1.9%.
Anyone thinking of using SJP, a non independent financial advising firm, need to give their head a very big wobble, or am I missing something, are their investments and advisors so good that they are better than the 5,001 other investment funds and advisors out there?
I just don't get it,
1. OK so the starting point is whole-of-market, then Investment companies narrow that down. The only difference at SJP is that process happens earlier and therefore is undertaken by the specialists as opposed to most IFA's that likes to play fund manager or simply farm it out. Do you really think the average IFA has the skills and resources to fully assess and continue to monitor each and all of the options available? No, they simply farm it out to an external manager to do it.
2. Then where is your criticism of the rest of the big players? SJP is in the bottom quartile of charges compared to the big players and about half way when you take into account the smaller players. The charges are only high compared with doing it yourself. If you have the time, skills and inclination to do it yourself then great! That doesn't make the charging structure expensive.
Re Charges, you have based your entire view on the MAXIMUM that an SJP Partner is able to charge. By the same logic, if an IFA's network doesn't set out a maximum for them to abide by I can say "oh well I wont use them because they could charge me 10% upfront."
I have NEVER charged 5% on an ISA contribution, the most i've every charged is 3% although often we will do it at 0% if for example we are doing a pension transfer. The average charged by SJP Partners on ISA's I believe is around 2.5%.
Re Pensions, as you would have seen that will be gone in just over a year. It shouldn't really have been allowed given that it was outlawed for IFAs' and therefore i support the changes. With that said, I have a lot of longstanding clients who, because the pension remained after 6 years, paid 0% initial charges.
Finally, you are only comparing against our core IMA products. Especially for larger investments we will use our discretionary fund manager arm which is whole-of-market and I've seem them do some really cool stuff.
The reality is that no one company is 'the best'. People would judge that on different metrics, naturally. If we ignore the 90% of commentary on SJP, which is either marketing material or IFA's myths, and focus on the facts the client outcomes simply do not match the nonsense spewed. Finally, even if it were all true, if SJP were the most expensive, worst performing, worst service, then how bad is the rest of the industry for SJP to be the biggest provider in the UK?
I'm not suggesting that SJP shouldn't be heavily scrutinised, however we simply do not see this scrutiny of other providers. Why? Because if your task is to get engagement on your website and clicks, you write about SJP and not an IFA Practice.
Initial Charges
We charge a maximum of 3%, average looks like it would be around the 2% mark for my business.
Ongoing Charges:
Depends on portfolio, but looking at the last couple of new clients they have been 1.62% - 1.67% PA
0.5% of this is currently Ongoing Advice Fee (My bit) and therefore can be turned off.
Re Pensions I suspect we will do a lot of new business at 1-2% initial charge (Depending on size) and I believe the ongoing will be a tad higher, we will soon see.
We don't charge any additional fees whatsoever.
I love the arrogance of the "sorry, SJP's". You do all of your own investment work do you? No external managers / fund houses doing the work for you I hope? Otherwise, that's a little hypocritical don't you think?
Your turn.
As for charges - like you my initial charge starts at 3% but is usually 2.5% or even lower. For CL's I usually do a special deal if I am transferring funds from one product/platform/provider to another. My ongoing charge, again, is like yours at 0.5% but I have clients paying 0.3% or even 0.25% (but they have over £1m under management). The big difference is the Product Charges. I believe "your" 3% comes out of the 5% (for ISA's) or 6% (Pensions) - so that then leaves 2%-3% to cover other "charges". Most clients I have are paying a Platform/Provider charge of less than 0.5%pa - Quilter's Platform charge is around 0.2%-0.25% depending on the amount you have invested. Then funds charges are typically around 0.8%pa. Quilter have a range of managed portfolios that come in around 0.65%. If I am selecting individual funds I try to keep the whole charging structure (Product/funds/adviser) to below 1.5%pa. Royal London's Drawdown Pension has a capped 1% charge, with that coming down to 0.40% if you have over £250k invested. With that you can have a number of their Governed Portfolios at no extra cost - so you could get a Drawdown Pension paying just 0.4%pa for the Product AND the funds -can you do that for your clients ? No. Because you can only "advise" on SJP products. And that's the big difference. Its not just the charges but the range of Providers and Funds that a Whole of Market adviser can offer.
2. I've used and known a lot of IFA's over the years, none have ever come close to the charges SJP quote. I'd argue that those IFA's likely demand a higher fee as they aren't just selling/advising on a very limited product range.
Can you show SJP's fee's being in the bottom quartile? As I say I've never found anyone who's (quoted) charges are higher than yours.
On that front, with respect, nothing on the website says anything about the charges being a maximum, it states that's what the charges are.......... as an example https://www.sjp.co.uk/charges/pensions-charges
What proof have you that SJP is scrutinised more than anyone else you're all regulated aren't you? If the regulator is taking more interest in SJP that may be for different reasons.
In my view, biggest is very rarely best, SJP are successful due to good marketing and sales technics, you used an analogy on McDonalds (for a different reason), do McDonalds provide the best product, i.e. burgers? I think we'd all agree not, but they are successful/the largest for other reasons than the product itself, much like SJP.
I've not read anything that would suggest a reason to chose SJP over anyone else, to the contrary, and you've not really come up with anything TBH, other than the charges aren't really as high as advertised.
I'd love to hear from someone who actually does use SJP as to why the chose them and why they continue to be their advisors, I'm yet to find anyone who can really give an answer to that (I've worked with numbers of people over the years who have used SJP).
I've just set out what my last 2 investment clients are actually paying IN TOTAL. I.e. 3% Initial / 1.62% and 1.67 PA Ongoing in Total.
I.e. All Platform, Advice and Fund Manger charges included.
What I'd hoped for would that you would set out clearly an example of what your charges are. A lot of waffle, but very little data.
It's a separate discussion regarding what you actually get for what you pay, but you are just yet another IFA spouting nonsense about how expensive SJP are without bothering to actually find out what the charges are.
I don't simply throw all my clients into the core products, if I want to access the 13,000 or whatever there are funds in the UK I use our discretionary arm. Again, my point of challenge is the various comments about charges. None of which are ever backed up with data.
2. Because you are comparing against the maximum SJP charge. I agree with you that it should be clearer, but I'm telling you as someone whom has never charged the maximum fees quoted on the investment side and having seen the data, that the actual charges levied are far higher. SJP set the range and each practice aligned with them have the full flexibility to charge as they see fit within that range. Such as for example 0% initial.
EY undertook a thorough comparison against the big players about a year ago.
I'm not really trying to argue for SJP being better, the best etc, that's just meaningless. I'm just taking issue with the constant lies about them, it all gets a bit tiresome.
Re FCA, we represent 15% of the regulated advisers in the market. Where do you think the FCA start their job when they want to roll out changes...
As with any other firm, most people don't choose SJP, they choose the Adviser. If 15% of them are linked to SJP then a lot of clients will end up at SJP. They stay because they are happy with the service, pleased with the returns and see value in the advice they are being given. If I moved to an IFA network tomorrow, I'd take every single one of my clients with me.
I've no issue with a restricted model (In a way I use it myself with Vanguard), my issue is the charging is at or above the level of a non restricted model. Just my prediction, but within 10 years an SJP model will be no longer as technology takes over.
2. Interesting, an SJP advisor agreeing the fee's aren't clear! To the contrary i'd say they are very clearly laid out. The issue is we all know why don't we. Some mug punters will just accept they are what they are quoted and will pay the ridiculous so called 'maximum' fee's. You stated your fee's are in the bottom 25%, can you provide evidence to that effect? Is there a comparison of other restricted firms to SJP's fee's?
"I'm just taking issue with the constant lies about them, it all gets a bit tiresome." - I've not seen any lies about SJP?
You know better than me, but I struggle to see a member of the public choosing an advisor without knowledge of SJP and ending up there?
Re FCA, so you're proportionately scrutinised based on size? I work for the largest broker in the world so feel your pain, but it's not being more scrutinised (i.e. singled out).
I just struggle to see why anyone would choose SJP, nothing you've said has been as to why anyone should (over A N Other tied agent).
FWIW, if you want financial advice on Pensions or ISA's see an independent financial advisor, ideally by recommendation, anything else is restricting your options. If you are happy to restrict those options then don't pay IFA sized fee's, there's no need and many other options out there.
2. No, I'm saying that it could be clearer that that's the maximum charge payable, What i'd like to see is the regulator force companies to set out the average that they charge clients, not a meaningless example or maximum. If you look at any of the fully-managed options on the market it's almost impossible as a layperson to clearly see what they would pay as a client. I put the blame for this at the door of the regulator. I agree that some will pay more than they need to, but thats true of any firm, not simply SJP. Try and locate the EY report. The crux is that if you want a fully managed service you can expect to pay about 2% PA on average all in. If you don't want a fully managed service, then great. But in comparison with their peers SJP simply aren't expensive.
You simply need to search SJP in google and look at the weekly stream of misinformation from the likes of Yodelar (who are basically con artists). This wouldn't be an issue, but combine this with lazy journalism and you get the likes of FT and Money Marketing giving them credibility. Add in the constant nonsense that IFA write / talk about SJP and you suddenly have a nice flow of misinformation.
The FCA comment was because Golf Addick was talking about why the FCA haven't done anything about SJP. My point is merely that it's illogical to suggest that the FCA aren't up our backside permanently because of our size.
I'm not trying to convince you why someone would or wouldn't choose SJP, I don't need to. I simply would like to see a level playing field so that clients can choose whom to work with based on a clear and easy comparison against different providers supported by a a strong regulator and a healthy environment of journalism ensuring that it stays that way. What we have instead is a system of marketing funnels by con artists undermining the trust of one of the best markets for financial advice in the world. IFA's have sadly been a part of the issue in their actions.
You seem to have this romantic notion that if you go to an IFA you get someone who is looking at the whole of the market and recommending the most appropriate option for you. What I'm saying is that this is very rarely the case and if you were to look at the client bank of most IFA's you'll see a huge weighting towards one or two particular investment houses. I'm simply saying that is the reality of the IFA market (not the romantic notion of what it is) actually better? I'm not convinced.
Advice charges
We charge for our initial advice and for our ongoing advice. 4.5% of your initial investment will be used to pay for initial advice and an annual charge of 0.5% will be charged for the ongoing advice and the relationship with your adviser.
Product charges
There will be an initial product charge of 1.5% of your investment. There will also be an annual product management charge of 1% but this will be waived in the first 6 years for each investment. If you encash within the first 6 years of an investment there will be an early withdrawal charge of 1% of the value of your fund in respect of this investment. After 10 years, the annual product management charge will reduce from 1% to 0.85%.
So yes, according to your website the initial charge on Pensions is a fee of 4.5% (you could argue 6% if you add in the Product Charge) and whilst you may not call it an 'exit penalty' there is a 1% fee if you encash within the first 6 years, that's an exit fee however you dress it up.
As Jeff would say, unbelievable......... is it any wonder SJP get bad press when their own advisors don't know their advertised fee structure.
EDIT, so I give over my £1m pension to SJP which overnight becomes £940k due to the charges quoted, if I then smell the coffee and want to move it out to another provider you send me £930k. Bargain!
So, your understanding of what you have read on the SJP website lead you to believe that (Based on the maximum permissable charges to keep it simple) a client would pay 4.5% at the front end AND an exit penalty?
So lets for arguments sake say a client invested £100,000 into an SJP Pension. The way you've understood it is that £4,500 would be deducted at the front end and an exit penalty would apply? I just need to know how you've understood it, as it would explain a lot.
In fairness, I will accept that it could be clearer and from 2025 it will be expressed the same way as the ISA / Investment side. (Even with that, people like golfaddick will try and misrepresent it)
If you had £1,000,000 pension transferred to SJP (and again lets assume full charges to keep it simple) every single penny of the Pension would be invested at the front-end. I.e. £100,000,000. If you were to leave during the 6 year period, then yes lets call a spade a spade an exit penalty would apply as follows;
Year 1: 6%
Year 2: 5%
Year 3: 4%
Year 4: 3%
Year 5: 2%
Year 6: 1%
Thereafter 0%.
Therefore, people like the original poster who stayed for the first 6 years ended up paying no initial charges whatsoever.
Again, this will be gone by the end of 2024 (agree it should have been sooner) but you have clearly shown that you yourself are a mouthpiece of misinformation about a company it seems you've never even sat down with and considered their offering.
All I can say with my experience of SJP is that I have known 3 clients associated with them. 2 of them inherited funds from a deceased parent and on both occasions, when examining the paperwork, the client's couldn't or did not want to to cash in the investments because of the exit fees in place.
I think we should leave the final word with SJP themselves. Having seen their share price almost halve this year they announced last month that their charging structure is going to change. Not overnight, but over the next 18 months. They admitted in the press release that people had found it hard to compare their charges with other adviser firms/providers and will be, in future, splitting the charges down to the (now) normal 3 components Platform/Provider charges, fund charges and adviser fees. So in 2025 we can have another discussion once we know how these match up with the competition.