St Jame's Place Review

steampowered

claire21 wrote: »

Ok so I don’t want to be shot down so please be gentle with me as I feel brave posting as a SJP client

I am glad to hear you got the help you needed, claire21.

I would tend to agree that sorting out solicitors and accountants is going "beyond the call of duty". I don't think you'd get the same from an average IFA, those that do provide that level of support would probably charge more for it.

OldBill wrote: »

OK so far as it goes - but the reviewer still fails to explain what every other critic of SJP fails to explain

The reviewer in the video queries whether most SJP clients understand what they are paying.

I think that hits the nail on the head perfectly. Most people have a very poor understanding of how they pay for financial services to begin with. Add to that the fact that SJP's fee structure is deliberately complicated and obtuse, and you end up with a situation where very few people will understand what they are actually paying.

You only have to look at the Which? investigation into SJP which found that people were not told about all the charges which applied even when explicitly asked.

SonOf

I would tend to agree that sorting out solicitors and accountants is going "beyond the call of duty". I don't think you'd get the same from an average IFA, those that do provide that level of support would probably charge more for it.

IFAs routinely deal with accountants and solicitors where it is need. Perhaps the most common area is company directors and pensions and trusts but also with deaths and estate planning.

Many IFAs have commercial tie-ups with accountants and solicitors or have an informal relationship with them. Solicitors are only allowed to recommend IFAs. They are not allowed to recommend FAs/sales reps like SJP.

Malthusian

steampowered wrote: »

I would tend to agree that sorting out solicitors and accountants is going "beyond the call of duty". I don't think you'd get the same from an average IFA, those that do provide that level of support would probably charge more for it.

SonOf is correct, this is standard. It is certainly not "beyond the call of duty". IFAs will routinely deal with queries where input from an accountant (e.g. company pension contributions) or a solicitor (e.g. estate planning) will be desirable. So it's just part of the call of duty, it's CII textbook stuff.

I think that hits the nail on the head perfectly. Most people have a very poor understanding of how they pay for financial services to begin with. Add to that the fact that SJP's fee structure is deliberately complicated and obtuse, and you end up with a situation where very few people will understand what they are actually paying.

Agreed. Defence of SJP's practices almost always revolves around "It's not actually that expensive" (it is) rather than "It's worth it". Not disclosing the full extent of charges (e.g. leaving out fund management charges and expenses), pretending the exit charge doesn't matter, etc etc.

On top of this is the fact that SJP reps routinely pretend to be IFAs when they are not. And other marketing gimmickry like their supposed "guarantee" to compensate for any poor advice, when this is actually a legal obligation that applies to any financial adviser. Their obfuscation over their charges is just part of the overall strategy.

bostonerimus

Large money management firms like SJP advertise widely and catch many people who are looking for someone to hold their hand. They are not necessarily that financially sophisticated and so might well believe they are getting good service without fully understanding the level and type of fees the will be paying: fund fees, advice fees and withdrawal fees etc.

Most people will also do a lot to justify poor financial decisions because it’s hard to admit mistakes that cost you money., so once SJP has someone as a customer, that person will not be too vocal about any poor experiences because they want to avoid looking foolish.

atush

To me, on these forums the Devil Incarnate is the unregulated investments posed as safe investments.

Even if SJP are more regulated, to me they are highway robbery rather than devils due to their very high charges, opaque structure and non indpendent non whole of market focus