Have you heard of St James's Place

Tiggs_2

as an interesting aside.....when those skandia funds were started you would have been RECOMMENDED them by your adviser (IFA)....when you switched to SJP you would have CHOOSEN them as our SJP adviser cant recommend specific funds other than to explain which are appropriate to your ATR.

cloud_dog

Tiggs wrote:

Thats fine, thats not what i do.

I make money from product sales....so of course you wouldnt use my firm. Luckily for me there are millions that do use finacial services based on product sales and only a very small number that do what you are looking for.

As far as im concerned fee only V product sales are two COMPLETLEY different jobs. As i'm happy doing my job and make a good living from it i am not upset to hear about how some people would rather use a servoce provided by someone who does a different job to me.......be a boring old world if everyone wanted the same thing.

Tiggs, I think you missed my / the point.

Ignore how you get recompensed, i.e. commission / flat fee, etc, the point is that we (me being an ordinary member of the public) want to know that an adviser is operating in MY best interest.

End of, as far as I'm concerned, you can get as much commission / fee from me / service provider as you wish as long as the advise you are giving me is the absolute best for me in my circumstances and is in my best interest.

cloud_dog

whiteflag_3

Tiggs wrote:

as an interesting aside.....when those skandia funds were started you would have been RECOMMENDED them by your adviser (IFA)....when you switched to SJP you would have CHOOSEN them as our SJP adviser cant recommend specific funds other than to explain which are appropriate to your ATR.

and im sure that your Rothschilds (why the name change), sorry SJP salesman / partner (partner lol) would have explained this as he took you through the sales( churning) process!

dunstonh

Tiggs wrote:

as an interesting aside.....when those skandia funds were started you would have been RECOMMENDED them by your adviser (IFA)....when you switched to SJP you would have CHOOSEN them as our SJP adviser cant recommend specific funds other than to explain which are appropriate to your ATR.

Seeing as no documentation appears to have been given and that poppy still thought he was an IFA, do you think that he told her that?

One of the biggest differences with IFAs vs Tied Agents is that IFAs recommend funds but tied agents do not. Yet it is one of the least known about differences.

Indeed, you all know my views on sector allocation and that is how I operate but I wouldnt be able to do that compliantly (within the rules) if I was a tied agent. A tied agent presents the funds available within the risk profile and the client chooses them.

Tiggs, what is it that SJP are offering you that you dont get as an IFA. You have already stated you take full commissions and IFA commissions arent going to be much different to SJP. The only thing I can think where you would benefit is operating costs with SJP covering PI and FSA levies and no personal liability on the advice.

Poppy9

I remember being in on the picking of the Scandia funds as 2 were classed as low risk and 2 as medium. With the SJP I was of the understanding that no-one picked funds, this was managed by SJP and moved to take advantage of the market. The first I knew of what funds I had was this 6 monthly statement.

Internation Unit Trust (acc units)
Recovery unit trust (acc unit)
Recovery unit trust (inc unit)
Tracker unit trust (acc unit)
UK & Gen prog unit trust (acc units)

Tiggs_2

dunstonh wrote:

Seeing as no documentation appears to have been given and that poppy still thought he was an IFA, do you think that he told her that?

my point exactly, very shoody.

Poppy9

Tiggs wrote:

my point exactly, very shoody.

But why all of a sudden. For the past 15 years he's served us well. Filled out forms at our home to assess our attitude to risk, found us good deals on mortgages (I double check), explained pro's and con's of leaving our assets in trust for DD, looked at our IHT implications etc.

This time we called into his office to sign papers for new mortgage and he mentions SJP at the end. Told me better managed, better performance but carries on much the same. No paper work completed. I find this very strange unless he's financially in the xxxx and needs the money.

Tiggs_2

Poppy9 wrote:

But why all of a sudden. For the past 15 years he's served us well. Filled out forms at our home to assess our attitude to risk, found us good deals on mortgages (I double check), explained pro's and con's of leaving our assets in trust for DD, looked at our IHT implications etc.

This time we called into his office to sign papers for new mortgage and he mentions SJP at the end. Told me better managed, better performance but carries on much the same. No paper work completed. I find this very strange unless he's financially in the xxxx and needs the money.

who knows?

if he is not up front with you then maybe he feels its a poor move for clients but one he needs to make - in which case he's a muppet and shouldnt have switched.

i can only speak for myself but my clients will all be WELL aware what i'm doing and the positive reasons for doing so.

dunstonh

Poppy, he has invested in a range of unit trusts quite a bit higher up the risk scale.

Internation Unit Trust (acc units) -Global Growth
Recovery unit trust (acc unit) - Global Growth
Recovery unit trust (inc unit) - Global Growth
Tracker unit trust (acc unit) - UK All companies
UK & Gen prog unit trust (acc units) - UK All companies

Not a very good spread and higher risk.

If you take all the funds in the sectors and look at past performance, the Tracker unit trust has been in the bottom half since it was launched and the UK & Gen has been in the bottom half for the last 5 years.

The global growth funds are both top half performers and the Recovery fund has performed well in 4th place over 5 years. Although you could have invested in the funds in first and second place with Skandia.

Whilst past performance is no indication of future returns, the SJP adviser used that as his reasoning for moving and that reasoning is inaccurate. Two of the funds are poor. The two which are better have not performed as well as funds available on the Skandia platform so using past performance saying it was better than Skandia was wrong.

Think of Skandia as Tescos. They sell a range of different brands and products. Think of SJP as Heinz. They sell a range of different products but only with the Heinz label. Would you go to a shop that sold all the different brands or would you go to a shop that ONLY sold Heinz?

Tiggs_2

dunstonh wrote:

Think of Skandia as Tescos. They sell a range of different brands and products. Think of SJP as Heinz. They sell a range of different products but only with the Heinz label. Would you go to a shop that sold all the different brands or would you go to a shop that ONLY sold Heinz?

Although if Tescos didnt sell Heinz would you pop to the Heinz shop next door for your favorite beans?

(just keeping the debate alive