SJP in The Sunday Times

yorkalley

jsinc wrote: »

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.

Completely agree with you on that they don't make it easy.

bostonerimus

jsinc wrote: »

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 sounds very expensive to me...1.5% and a fee for early withdrawal. I can see that if you are in a saving bond of a particular length you should plan to avoid early withdrawal, but those fees and charges seem excessive to me.

Malthusian

bostonerimus wrote: »

I can see that if you are in a saving bond of a particular length you should plan to avoid early withdrawal

...unless, of course, you have just woken up to how much you are paying through the nose, in which case you should withdraw as soon as possible to reinvest in something with non-eye-bleeding charges.

This is a point that all SJP's defenders miss with their "the exit charge doesn't matter because it's supposed to be a long-term investment" shtick.

And on top of the exit charge clients may have to pay a major tax bill to get away from SJP due to SJP's habit of recommending offshore bonds purely to hang a tax millstone around the client's neck. (Unlike unwrapped assets, offshore bonds can't be transferred in-specie away from SJP. It's pay the tax bill or stay with SJP.)

jsinc

bostonerimus wrote: »

This sounds very expensive to me...1.5% and a fee for early withdrawal. I can see that if you are in a saving bond of a particular length you should plan to avoid early withdrawal, but those fees and charges seem excessive to me.

Agreed. I wouldn't go anywhere near SJP's offer (terms, tied advice and fees) but was clarifying the initial charge aspect as described on some products.

(But I'm cynical about most ongoing-fee-generating advice and any wider social utility of private pensions in general)

capital0ne

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.

Absolutely correct - it's like consultants who use your own watch and then charge you to tell you the time!