St James's place wealth management
Comments
-
Hi,To put a slightly different spin on this, he would only be financially remunerated if you boughgt one of the policies provided by his parent company and he had no ability to go off panel and suggest something else to you. Given this, do you think his advice was unbiased in comparison to someone charging you an up front fee for recommending a solution from the wider market of investments and a second fee for implementation, with both fees independent of the actual products selected?
Also, you certainly did pay him. SJP pay their partners out of the initial charges on their policies, which are adviser charges. Unit trusts and OEICs can be bought on the wider market for no initial charge, so the entire amount deducted from your contribution is the fee you are paying your adviser, in effect.
This is my situation. I have a 200+k pension that is invested with St.Jamses, that came to me post divorce. I have an option now to stay with SJP and carry on paying 1.6% perannum all inclusive, move else where (was looking at TRPP for similar pension services) or split the money between those two companies. I am not too keen on the later as paying two lots of fees is very expensive. I need to make the right choice, any advice would be appreciated.0 -
Hi,
This is my situation. I have a 200+k pension that is invested with St.Jamses, that came to me post divorce. I have an option now to stay with SJP and carry on paying 1.6% perannum all inclusive, move else where (was looking at TRPP for similar pension services) or split the money between those two companies. I am not too keen on the later as paying two lots of fees is very expensive. I need to make the right choice, any advice would be appreciated.
Use an IFA. Expect a cost analysis to be carried out and what the IFA has available to be a lot cheaper (although it is possible that you may want mixed priced assets in there as well). SJP is damned expensive and IFAs like coming across people who use SJP.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
SJP are expensive, I believe they generally take 4.5% initial charge still (which is quite high in the new world). They're ongoing service, anecdotally, is very good.
Edit: I'd add - For smaller investors, I'd say definitely steer clear. For the more wealthy who don't mind paying the higher costs in exchange for free lunches, golf days or trips out at your [STRIKE]advisers[/STRIKE] expense, well, what ColdIron said rings true - Shopping at Harrods when you could buy at M&S.
Corrected for you.
The only way they are paying for such perks is from your fees, that's what their income isRemember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0 -
Graph on front page of Telegraph Money yesterday showing returns for those doing low (ish) cost DIY versus those paying the 2%+ for (expensive) advice. Quite a gap after a few decades.
And, of course, in their example the DIY punter was still paying through the nose for actively managed funds.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Graph on front page of Telegraph Money yesterday showing returns for those doing low (ish) cost DIY versus those paying the 2%+ for (expensive) advice. Quite a gap after a few decades.
And, of course, in their example the DIY punter was still paying through the nose for actively managed funds.
Which did better?Left is never right but I always am.0 -
The telegraph model is comparing discretionary management services with DIY funds. It cannot compare like for like as most discretionary management services use direct assets.
It assumes that both grow at 7% but then deduct 1% for DIY and 2% for discretionary investment managers. However, that isnt how it works at all and it certainly would not be the same assets as the DIY investor would have funds but the DIM would have ITs, ETFs, shares, gilts, bonds etc. There may be a smattering of funds but they would normally be special terms versions.
So, the article is complete and utter BS as it is not about like for like. I am not a fan of discretionary management at normal retail consumer level but the person that wrote this article has made things up, not compared like for like and seems to have a complete lack of knowledge in the differences.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
However, that isnt how it works at all and it certainly would not be the same assets as the DIY investor would have funds but the DIM would have ITs, ETFs, shares, gilts, bonds etc.
I agree that the typical DIY investor would just use funds but ITs, ETFs, shares, gilts, bonds etc. are not out of bounds for DIY investors. So you can compare like with like, and it's pretty much a no brainer for those who know their stuff to see that higher charges are worse than lower charges.0 -
I agree that the typical DIY investor would just use funds but ITs, ETFs, shares, gilts, bonds etc. are not out of bounds for DIY investors. So you can compare like with like, and it's pretty much a no brainer for those who know their stuff to see that higher charges are worse than lower charges.
Yes, a DIY investor could choose to use direct options. However, if that is the case, then the article fails to mention dealing costs that the DIY investor would have. It is clear that the article is not referring to direct investments. It is poorly researched and mostly made up rubbish.
DIY can be cheaper (and it can be more expensive if you get it wrong or use the wrong provider). However, even the most ardent DIY investor must see the flaws the article and agree that it is wrong.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
....... the DIY investor would have funds but the DIM would have ITs, ETFs, shares, gilts, bonds etc.
Why wouldn't the DIY investor hold ITs, ETFs, shares, gilts or bonds?
Although I personally choose to only invest in gilts and bonds via funds I certainly invest in ITs, ETFs and shares as well as funds. I know many who invest directly in gilts and bonds as well.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards