St. James's Place - can I do better?

OldMusicGuy

Malthusian wrote: »

Unless you are a jet-setting multinational with a unique tax position that is beyond the ken of an IFA, paying a "tax specialist" and an IFA is doubling up.

Not in my case it wouldn't have been. I needed advice on tax treatment of a US 401k. I doubt many IFAs would have been able to give me the advice I needed, which is why I would have paid a tax specialist if I needed to. But I was able to work it out myself by reading the appropriate taxation treaties, HMRC advice and using an expat tax forum.

If I had needed advice, I would have turned to an expat tax specialist when I needed that specific advice and I'm glad I wasn't paying an IFA an ongoing fee for "tax advice".

To be fair to the poster, it sounds like their affairs are quite complex, with a property portfolio, more than one business and quite a large pension pot.

dunstonh

Not in my case it wouldn't have been. I needed advice on tax treatment of a US 401k.

Most IFAs are not authorised to deal with US citizens from A PI Insurance point of view. That puts you in the unusual tax position of the 1% that an IFA would not likely deal with unless they are an ex pat specialist. Once you cease being a US citizen then it is not an issue but a 401k would not be commonplace with many IFAs or indeed many accountants.

and I'm glad I wasn't paying an IFA an ongoing fee for "tax advice".

What makes you think there would be an ongoing fee for tax advice. Surely that would be transactional?

OldMusicGuy

dunstonh wrote: »

Most IFAs are not authorised to deal with US citizens from A PI Insurance point of view. That puts you in the unusual tax position of the 1% that an IFA would not likely deal with unless they are an ex pat specialist. Once you cease being a US citizen then it is not an issue but a 401k would not be commonplace with many IFAs or indeed many accountants.

I'm not, and never was, a US citizen. I worked in the US for a couple of years and had a 401k while there. I had a specific question about the tax treatment of withdrawals from a 401k in the UK. Not too complicated but an area where I suspect most IFAs would not have knowledge.

dunstonh wrote: »

What makes you think there would be an ongoing fee for tax advice. Surely that would be transactional?

Because Abspmcn implied that SJP gave helpful advice about matters other than the pension and Malthusian said that IFAs would be up with the latest tax rules. Both posts implied there is additional value in paying an ongoing fee to such advisers because you get more than just pension advice.

My point was I would rather pay the right expert for transactional advice specific to my circumstances rather than pay someone money every year on the basis that they might be able to provide the help I need. Which in my case, they wouldn't. So you seem to be agreeing with me....;)

dunstonh

Because Abspmcn implied that SJP gave helpful advice about matters other than the pension and Malthusian said that IFAs would be up with the latest tax rules. Both posts implied there is additional value in paying an ongoing fee to such advisers because you get more than just pension advice.

I get you now. SJP dont do transactional. IFAs have to offer transactional. They cannot insist on ongoing.

Abspmcn

SJP funds are dogs

Why do you say this? What is your evidence?

badger09

Abspmcn wrote: »

Why do you say this? What is your evidence?

Click on the link in the post you have quoted

Abspmcn

Thanks everyone

droopsnoot

I've read through this with a small amount of concern, a friend of mine recently told me that he had a meeting with a financial guy, several of his friends use them and were happy with the results, so he decided to give it a go. I didn't ask who it was until after the event, and I've believe he's now signed up. It turns out to have been SJP, via a company called Jones Regan Wealth Management.

Am I reading it correctly, that he's made a bit of a mistake in terms of charges, but he's not in a dire situation like LCF or other unregulated things? It's just that he's paid more than he needed to?

Belatedly I asked him to get me a card as I have a few things I'd like to sort out and it sounded intriguing, the charges he's been quoted are 6.7% for the first year (5% set up fee, 1.7% annual charge) and 1.7% per annum thereafter. I have no idea of the funds he's invested in, nor the level / size of investment.

bowlhead99

droopsnoot wrote: »

Am I reading it correctly, that he's made a bit of a mistake in terms of charges, but he's not in a dire situation like LCF or other unregulated things? It's just that he's paid more than he needed to?

Yes, you have the right end of the stick: they are not a scam company, they are a large, well known and regulated business.

However, they are very expensive for what you get (especially considering the advice given is not properly independent - they only sell their own product (or their own versions of other firms' product) and they do tend to have glossy marketing or slick sales people who can somewhat pull the wool over people's eyes when it comes to fees, (which they bundle into the overall product cost), or quality (some people will get the impression they are independent advisors).

There is nothing wrong per se with buying into the hype and paying Waitrose / M&S prices (or even Harrods / Selfridge / Fortnum prices) for something available in Tesco or Aldi. The people with the luxury offering will charge you more money than you need to pay, but you might enjoy the experience better, even though the slice of ham has the same nutritional value whatever you buy it. The price differentiation doesn't make the expensive companies a scam and you are not really in 'a dire situation' if you later realise you could have bought the same thing down the road for less money.

The issue is simply that you might kick yourself if someone points it out, because if you spend more than you need to, you damage your wealth. It doesn't mean your friend will get a financially worse result than doing a bad DIY job himself, but he may get a financially worse result than using a cheaper service provider to access similar products.

Alexland

bowlhead99 wrote: »

even though the slice of ham has the same nutritional value whatever you buy it

While I agree with most of your post there are some extremely unpleasant cheap meats available. If on a budget then I would rather eat better ham less often. This comment is limited to ham and I wouldn't want to pay the SJP charges under any circumstances. That would make me really sick.

Alex.