We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

SJP in The Sunday Times

Options
2

Comments

  • cloud_dog
    cloud_dog Posts: 6,322 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    fred246 wrote: »
    With SJP you have to pay the spiv and a FTSE100 company, with an IFA you just pay the spiv so on average SJPs costs should be more. Mis-selling has always been prevalent in financial advice and I would expect forging a signature or two pretty normal. Financial advisers have set themselves up to line their own pockets. That's the same for all businesses but most are a bit less blatant than financial advisers.
    Fred, you make me chuckle, are you saying that if IFAs were more opaque about their charging then it would be less distasteful?
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True :D

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
  • yorkalley
    yorkalley Posts: 4 Newbie
    edited 22 July 2019 at 12:24PM
    I have previously worked for two different SJP partners and an IFA practice so I have in depth experience of both - which most people don't - especially the critics of SJP.

    First of all to put it into context the article is about one bad SJP adviser and there are 4,000 of them – this does not mean all of them are bad – like the paper is insinuating. There has been nothing wrong done by SJP (from what I can see) the fault is with Regency Wealth Management. Type IFA Fraud into google and see how many articles there are. The difference is when an IFA commits fraud the article is lead with the name of the IFA, when an SJP partner commits fraud it’s lead with SJP. What the paper should really be leading with the name of the SJP partner if it wanted to present the news in a fair way!

    Anyway, if the adviser has forged a signature then he should be kicked out, banned for life and possibly prosecuted - no contest – but I do say if. Clients often claim they have never had and never seen documents when the document is being used against them and I’m not just talking about financial services – how many people claim they never knew about a clause in their phone contract, or their car lease hire, or their holiday, or their gas and electric etc. If he has then throw him to the wolves but I wouldn’t take the word of the lady as gospel - it’s in her interest for this other letter to be a forgery. For all we know she could have been given draft or the letter changed afterwards and she only kept one copy or misfiled the other etc.

    Second article with the Hargreaves comparison. First of all SJP have 5% initial charges on the ISA and Unit Trust funds – pensions and investment bonds don’t have upfront charges. So the article assumes someone puts £1m into an ISA and pays a 5% initial charge. Quite often I saw advisers voluntarily reducing the fee to less than 5% - even wiping it out altogether for large investments - but they don’t mention that. No decent SJP adviser (or IFA) would invest £1m into just an ISA/Unit Trust, they would spread it around other products, and anything into a bond or pension wouldn’t get an upfront charge with SJP. Also some of the funds you can choose with Hargreaves do have bid offer spreads – but they only compare SJP to an investment that doesn’t have one.

    So whilst these comparisons may be technically correct, they have made some huge assumptions that don’t reflect the real world. Plus if you have a pension or a bond with SJP this comparison is completely irrelevant to you.This does not mean that every investment with Hargreaves is amazing and every investment with SJP is bad. I mean only last week the press were up in arms about Hargreaves for recommending Neil Woodford. The way SJP appointed Woodford meant there was no withdrawal restriction from their fund, but people with money in Hargreaves still can’t get to it. The press need to make up their mind.

    So – like anything printed in the press – take this with a pinch of salt. SJP and IFAs have some really good advisers and some bad apples. This does not mean that every SJP adviser is bad. Do your research, check reviews and references, get second opinions etc. If you are a happy client of SJP already, and you do not deal with Regency Wealth Management, then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about.
  • Clive_Woody
    Clive_Woody Posts: 5,937 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    yorkalley wrote: »
    If you are a happy client of SJP already, and you do not deal with Regency Wealth Management, then you shouldn’t have anything to worry about.
    Apart from the high fees and under performing funds...:money:
    "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein
  • jsinc
    jsinc Posts: 318 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper
    yorkalley wrote: »
    ...First of all SJP have 5% initial charges on the ISA and Unit Trust funds – pensions and investment bonds don’t have upfront charges...
    Website says Pensions and Investment Bonds incur a 4.5% initial advice charge, and 1.5% initial product charge.
    https://www.sjp.co.uk/products-and-services/charges/pensions-charges
    https://www.sjp.co.uk/products-and-services/charges/investment-charges
  • EthicsGradient
    EthicsGradient Posts: 1,248 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    yorkalley wrote: »
    First of all to put it into context the article is about one bad SJP adviser and there are 4,000 of them – this does not mean all of them are bad – like the paper is insinuating. There has been nothing wrong done by SJP (from what I can see) the fault is with Regency Wealth Management. Type IFA Fraud into google and see how many articles there are. The difference is when an IFA commits fraud the article is lead with the name of the IFA, when an SJP partner commits fraud it’s lead with SJP. What the paper should really be leading with the name of the SJP partner if it wanted to present the news in a fair way!

    Anyway, if the adviser has forged a signature then he should be kicked out, banned for life and possibly prosecuted - no contest – but I do say if. Clients often claim they have never had and never seen documents when the document is being used against them and I’m not just talking about financial services – how many people claim they never knew about a clause in their phone contract, or their car lease hire, or their holiday, or their gas and electric etc. If he has then throw him to the wolves but I wouldn’t take the word of the lady as gospel - it’s in her interest for this other letter to be a forgery. For all we know she could have been given draft or the letter changed afterwards and she only kept one copy or misfiled the other etc.
    No, it's not just about the adviser. The ombudsman 'said the suitability letter given to her was “fundamentally misleading” and SJP had “changed its evidence” ... “I have serious concerns about some of the key evidence supplied by St James’s Place."'

    SJP has been backing the adviser, and gave different evidence to the woman and to the ombudsman. Its behaviour looks shifty, dishonest and a prime reason to stay away from them. Whether or not SJP itself broke any law.
  • jsinc wrote: »
    Website says Pensions and Investment Bonds incur a 4.5% initial advice charge, and 1.5% initial product charge.

    The only charges on bonds and pensions are an AMC of 1.5%, the fund managers charge and exit charges during the first six years. The advice charges are built into those but are not charged separately. There is no upfront deduction, the amount you invest is the amount allocated.
  • Seabee42
    Seabee42 Posts: 448 Forumite
    So the advisor doesn't get anything at all from the investment?
  • bostonerimus
    bostonerimus Posts: 5,617 Forumite
    Sixth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    edited 22 July 2019 at 3:30PM
    fred246 wrote: »
    With SJP you have to pay the spiv and a FTSE100 company, with an IFA you just pay the spiv so on average SJPs costs should be more. Mis-selling has always been prevalent in financial advice and I would expect forging a signature or two pretty normal. Financial advisers have set themselves up to line their own pockets. That's the same for all businesses but most are a bit less blatant than financial advisers.

    As with any product/profession there is a range in quality and value. The difficulty is finding good value for money. Unfortunately the UK financial industry has a history of being expensive and high fees have been the norm. It looks like there is some pressure from competition and legislation to bring costs down, but people are still all too willing to pay high fund,FA and platform fees due to a mixture of poor knowledge and smoke and mirrors from large parts of the financial industry. SJP may be a poor company to use to manage your money, but there are many other bad companies too.

    There is a systemic issue in the UK financial industry with a rather paternal attitude to customers and a norm sees fees to deposit and access money as ok and that if a fee is waived the customer is getting good value. What about not even having such fees! I DIY with Vanguard in the US and the only fees I pay are fund fees which average out to 0.07%. If I want some of my money from a retirement account or a regular investment account I just go on to the website, sell some units of a mutual fund and the money is deposited into my bank account two days later....there is absolutely no charge for this.
    “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.”
  • yorkalley
    yorkalley Posts: 4 Newbie
    edited 22 July 2019 at 3:24PM
    Seabee42 wrote: »
    So the advisor doesn't get anything at all from the investment?

    They are paid an initial advice fee and an ongoing advice fee - but it all comes out of the 1.5% pa (and the exit charge if it's incurred). Just to clarify this is for bonds and pensions.
  • jsinc
    jsinc Posts: 318 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper
    yorkalley wrote: »
    The only charges on bonds and pensions are an AMC of 1.5%, the fund managers charge and exit charges during the first six years. The advice charges are built into those but are not charged separately. There is no upfront deduction, the amount you invest is the amount allocated.
    The 4.5% + 1.5% initial charges = tapering 6% early exit charge? Ignoring other costs/performance and my own biases they're not doing themselves any favours with online explanation of costs.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.