Saint James's Place

SweatyBald

Thanks for those links jsinc.

I am a Which member and I read that and also the yodel piece.
I got charged a entrance fee of 5% when I made investments for the first 2 years, after which I asked for them to be removed conditional on further investment, so I don't get that now.
The funds I have are not top quartile for sure, but they are top half. I have 70% of my investment in four funds, US Equity, UK Equity, small Asia and Europe. I get this basis Citywire rather than just the FE reports I get sent.
I don't feel I've been misled... but I wonder if you don't ask, you don't get told? An old sales technique indeed.And I wonder how many people negotiate the fees before signing?

Clearly a lot of people feel they have been over-sold, maybe correctly.

Why are they so succesful in the face of negative pubilicity, or are there just as many customers happy that don't complain? I know only two other people who use them, the guy who recommended me, and another colleague at work, but we all seem happy.
I also wonder if they play to a brand, that is to make people "feel" wealthy by using them, and they are too embarassed to challenge things for fear of looking "cheap"?
Being half Scottish and half Yorkshire, you can't make me feel cheap.

SweatyBald

Alexland, I think you maybe hit the nail on the head. The funds go up, but not as much as if I used a good IFA (assuming I find one, and don't fall on a dud, my friends don't generally use them, they read research and go DIY).
I wonder how I quantify that result? I have a Towers Watson pension that's done 6.59% in the last 5 years, and an Aviva that's done a shocking 4.4% over 5 years. The fees on those are 0.39% and 0.45% respectively but those returns are net of fees.
My SJP has done 9.0% over 5 years net of average fees at 1.4%
Can you see why I am reluctant to change, given I just do not have the time, inclination or ability to do it myself? I understand there are also switching fees as you cross the bid-offer on unit trusts, I don't get any of those as the fund management is in the fee.
Should add they are all annualised returns over the period.

Seabee42

There were people happy to sail on the titanic despite her sister ship sinking and the white star line hiding the fire in her boiler room based on the "claims" of the staff at white star line it was unsinkable.


It doesn't mean it is a good decision nor that there are not better ships to sail on if you want to be informed.

Albermarle

Towers Watson pension that's done 6.59% in the last 5 years, and an Aviva that's done a shocking 4.4% over 5 years. The fees on those are 0.39% and 0.45% respectively but those returns are net of fees.
My SJP has done 9.0% over 5 years net of average fees at 1.4%

This is not a valid comparison as it could well be that the Aviva pension is invested in very low risk funds . In which case if markets had gone down the comparison would probably be the other way around with SJP.
I have had an Aviva pension until recently , which was invested in medium + medium high risk funds and average growth over 5 years was around 7% after the 1%fee ( now moved to a cheaper platform ) and I think this would be a typical result.

SonOf

and if I move away then am I looking at using a commission-based IFA instead with a broader range of products - which I might or might not want/need?

IFAs cannot accept commission and product providers are not allowed to pay it to advisers. It was banned back in 2013. Ironically, the SJP model is closer to commission as they are a vertically integrated firm (all parts in house - adviser - platform/provider - funds).

And I wonder how many people negotiate the fees before signing?

We were competing with SJP on a new investment last year. SJP quoted £25,000 initial charge vs our charge of £2,500. It was only when SJP found out our charge that they agreed to match it. Our compliance officer believes that the FCA does not like it when firms do that sort of thing on a regular basis as it indicates their charging structure is broken and indicates that if they can afford to do it for less for one person they can do it for all.

Plus, the SJP rep didnt use OCF, Transaction charges or incidental charges but used AMC. This is something that we have seen often when coming up against SJP.

I also wonder if they play to a brand, that is to make people "feel" wealthy by using them, and they are too embarassed to challenge things for fear of looking "cheap"?

SJP will wipe the floor with an IFA when it comes to glossy material and flash presentations. As an IFA is whole of market, they wont have brochures etc. Its just not viable. So, anything printed is done on the office printer. Whereas when you dont have much available in your product range and you are charging more than double an IFA, you can afford to have flash material. (btw, the regulator a number of years ago did research on the avearge initial fee and it was 1.8%. So, you can see how your 5% compares).

Can you see why I am reluctant to change, given I just do not have the time, inclination or ability to do it myself? I understand there are also switching fees as you cross the bid-offer on unit trusts, I don't get any of those as the fund management is in the fee.

Nowadays switching charges and spreads are not that common on the whole of market distribution. OEICs have no spread. A small number of UTs can but its not that common now.

My SJP has done 9.0% over 5 years net of average fees at 1.4%

Doesnt really mean much without dates and risk level.

Plus are the fees the OCF, transaction charges, incidental charges, provider charge and adviser charge all combined or just the AMC?

SweatyBald

Woody I've reported you for 3 reasons:
1. Your suggestive comments are incorrect, I am not a sales rep in this businses, and you don't have the right to make such statements just because you're maybe a bit of a bitter individual.
2. They are not constructive. I use SJP and I am aware of the bad press they receive, I wanted to know if anyone had anything to add beyond thier reputation for high fees, and the opion that their funds under-perform.
3. Your comments are just nasty and don't help anyone. This forum is here for people to ask questions and get help and/or advice. Do you really think anyone is going to make an investment decision by reading this post? Seriously? If you ask for advice, then you might act on it.

cloud_dog

So, two questions really...

SweatyBald wrote: »

Thanks for those links jsinc.

I am a Which member and I read that and also the yodel piece.
I got charged a entrance fee of 5% when I made investments for the first 2 years, after which I asked for them to be removed conditional on further investment, so I don't get that now.

1. You read the independent Which? report and chose to come on to an anonymous chat forum looking for "Any comments which are not baselessly and incorrectly suggestive, nasty, pointless and unconstructive, are welcome". The Which? report didn't do it for you :eek:
2. Re the 5% charges, you were unaware of these charges or you were quite happy to pay these charges until you weren't; what was the trigger????

SweatyBald

Thanks for comments, Seabee42, Albermarle and SonOf.

Albermarle - yes, you're right, the SJP funds are classed as Medium and you're right, other two are "Medium-Low"
SonOf - I think this is key, if you don't challenge and negotiate, their initial fees are high. I agree it's a questionable way of doing business and the FCA don't like it. However I suppose as long as it's in written and not willfully concealed, it's legal. Although that wouldn't rule out an adverse FCA decsision.
I need to think hard, my problem is that I'm fairly happy with the returns and fees, but clearly pretty much everyone thinks I could do better elsewhere. I've been pretty explicit on charges, and the 1.2% I'm paying is compherensive. I have this in writing, I also have a breakdown of charges per fund, as they differ despite all being SJP funds.
Thanks for the comments, even if you do think I'm an idiot!

Clive_Woody

SweatyBald wrote: »

Woody I've reported you for 3 reasons:
1. Your suggestive comments are incorrect, I am not a sales rep in this businses, and you don't have the right to make such statements just because you're maybe a bit of a bitter individual.
2. They are not constructive. I use SJP and I am aware of the bad press they receive, I wanted to know if anyone had anything to add beyond thier reputation for high fees, and the opion that their funds under-perform.
3. Your comments are just nasty and don't help anyone. This forum is here for people to ask questions and get help and/or advice. Do you really think anyone is going to make an investment decision by reading this post? Seriously? If you ask for advice, then you might act on it.

Report away fella, by all accounts I'm not the only one questioning your intentions for registering here to defend a company that has been discussed many times over, and rarely in a favourable way.

I've been a member here for many years and I've lost count of the number of first time poster who suddenly arrive promoting one thing or another...the folk claiming to sell magic spells are my favourite (but don't take this to heart...)

You've received lots of advice and feedback on SJP. Will you be moving your money elsewhere based on all this information?

P.S. it's not just an "opinion" that their funds under perform, various independent bodies have confirmed this to be true (see links provided already) plus it's not just a "reputation" for high fees, once again it's clear cut that they charge much higher fees than most IFAs :beer:

coyrls

SweatyBald wrote: »

2. They are not constructive. I use SJP and I am aware of the bad press they receive, I wanted to know if anyone had anything to add beyond thier reputation for high fees, and the opion that their funds under-perform.

Don't really need to look further than high fees (fact not reputation) and (related) under performance (fact not opinion) but you could add lack of independence and pushy sales methods.