Replace St James' Place

dunstonh

We changed from SJP to TP 7 years ago, and have seen year on year losses, (overall when inflation is factored in). 

That doesnt seem at all likely. 2016,2017,2019,2020,2021 were all positive.  All above inflation
2018 and 2022 were loss years.
2023 YTD is positive if you are heavy in equities but negative if heavy in gilts (levelish if mixture)

We would have been far better off just using the best savings accounts available

Again, that does not seem likely.
Interest rates until 2022 were rubbish.  2022 cash beat investing and 2023 is similar.

Better off going DIY or sticking to the best saving account you can find....

You went from one wealth manager to another.  Why not an IFA?

Brilley

Just checked our records over the last 7 years. Investements "peaked" around the end of 2021 which gave an overally "annual" return equivalent to 4% at that time. Checked again today and our overall "gain" is currently equivalent to 0.7% per annum...so yes we would have been better putting the money into a savings accounts, particularly now they are paying over 4%?

...and in hindsight I don't really know why we went with another FA linked to a group, other than the chap was local, seemed to be far more helpeful than our previou SJP rep, and "hinted" at performances of around 8%, (which I did realise was extremely optimistic, but I was hoping to at least to be able to keep pace with inflation).

...we stopped adding money to TP a while ago and now use HL, and I am comparing performances between the two,and at some point I will be leaving TP. 

I fully understand the risk, but just a little peeved that TP our currently making more from our money than we are!!

Also aware that investments should be seen as along term / 10 years...but the equivalent of 0.7% per annum over 7 years does not exactly fill me with confidence that things will turn around in the next 3 years..

Albermarle

Checked again today and our overall "gain" is currently equivalent to 0.7% per annum...

This is more likely if the portfolio is very high in bonds/gilts, which as explained have been a problem area.

TYpically a medium risk portfolio would be around 50 to 60% equities, but if yours was say more 'medium low' risk then the equity % would be less and the bonds/gilts % more, and this would result in poor returns, not helped by TP's charges.

.we stopped adding money to TP a while ago and now use HL, and I am comparing performances between the two,

HL is best known as an investment platform, so will have little effect on how the investment funds that you have chosen to hold on the platform, will perform.

They do offer a few HL ready made funds, along with all the thousands of investments from other providers. However HL funds tend to be expensive so are best avoided.

wiltshiregirl69

ColdIron said:

wiltshiregirl69 said:

Someone may have already said this but the best thing to do is to get an account at Vanguard (UK website) and choose a global index tracker

Few people have the risk appetite for 100% equities. SJP may be expensive but they are not reckless (remember we know nothing about the OP's objectives and circumstance) and I very much doubt they would suggest such a portfolio.

No...they might have suggested a combination bond/equity portfolio.  Bonds...as most near retirees have discovered are not risk adverse.  I don't think recommending a global index tracker is Reckless - looking at past performance over the last 20 to 30 years.  Of course if the OP is wanting a safe haven for his money - then a 5% cash savings account is the best place for it.  StJP is one of the most recklesss things the OP could do with his money IMHO.

wjr4

Brilley said:

 "hinted" at performances of around 8%, (which I did realise was extremely optimistic, but I was hoping to at least to be able to keep pace with inflation).

———————-

Nobody can predict the future and they shouldn’t have said 8% 

Albermarle

wiltshiregirl69 said:

ColdIron said:

wiltshiregirl69 said:

Someone may have already said this but the best thing to do is to get an account at Vanguard (UK website) and choose a global index tracker

Few people have the risk appetite for 100% equities. SJP may be expensive but they are not reckless (remember we know nothing about the OP's objectives and circumstance) and I very much doubt they would suggest such a portfolio.

No...they might have suggested a combination bond/equity portfolio.  Bonds...as most near retirees have discovered are not risk adverse.  I don't think recommending a global index tracker is Reckless - looking at past performance over the last 20 to 30 years.  Of course if the OP is wanting a safe haven for his money - then a 5% cash savings account is the best place for it.  StJP is one of the most recklesss things the OP could do with his money IMHO.

Experienced investors, or those with good nerves, will like you be aware that global index tracker funds are a good long term cheap way of investing.
However when an advisor is dealing with a new client they assess their risk tolerance, and most are not willing to invest in something that might fall 40% at some point. So most end up in funds that contain less than 100% equity. Also even investors who say they would be OK with that, will still panic when it happens and ask the advisor to pull out, usually at the worst time.
So advisors will not normally recommend a 100% equity investment for clients, as they could be accused of being reckless at a later date by a panicking client.
Most 100% equity investors are DIY and not using advisors anyway.

CheekyMikey

Brilley said:

CheekyMikey said:

My next next door neighbour but one is always extolling the virtues of True Potential and their funds do seem to do ok and they’re cheaper than SJP by quite a bit….just another name to consider if you’re still looking

..TP are also totally !!!!!!. We changed from SJP to TP 7 years ago, and have seen year on year losses, (overall when inflation is factored in). We would have been far better off just using the best savings accounts available. The best they ever achieved over the last 7 nyears was a maximum of 4% return . 

We would take all our money out but that would just compound our losses, so now stuck between a rock and a hard place. Over the last 7 odd years we have "made" less than 1% per year. I know stock markets have "tanked" recently, but after 7 + years we would have expected a better return (we are in a "medium risk" portfolio).

Better off going DIY or sticking to the best saving account you can find....

I was only relaying what my neighbour has said, but after your post I took a look myself at the TP website…I’m confused about your claim that the best they have achieved is 4%. I assume by medium risk you mean you’re in their “balanced” portfolio which I see saw annual growth of over 17% two years ago and over 7% four years ago. I can’t see how a best saving account would have been better for you in those years. As a previous poster said, the last two years has not been kind to any balanced portfolios and whilst diy would have saved you on fees, i doubt a diy balanced portfolio would have fared much better. Vanguard Lifestrategy 40 or 60 are also well down those two years for example. Personally I am diy, but much more heavily weighted towards equities.

Brilley

..I can't repeat what I have already stated enough. We have been with TP for 7 years, and every month I update a spreadsheet using actual values. (No money has been added or taken out). The only thing I am interested in is what amount we started with, and what is its current value "now". This is plotted on a chart alongside a graph that allows me to put in a "linear" line corresponding to any interest rate I choose. I can confirm that the best we have ever achieved was equivalent of a 4% per annum return, and as of the end of last month this was showing a current overall annualised return equivalent to 0.7%. We have never EVER got anywhere near 17%...(I wish)...

Cus

Albermarle said:

wiltshiregirl69 said:

ColdIron said:

wiltshiregirl69 said:

Someone may have already said this but the best thing to do is to get an account at Vanguard (UK website) and choose a global index tracker

Few people have the risk appetite for 100% equities. SJP may be expensive but they are not reckless (remember we know nothing about the OP's objectives and circumstance) and I very much doubt they would suggest such a portfolio.

No...they might have suggested a combination bond/equity portfolio.  Bonds...as most near retirees have discovered are not risk adverse.  I don't think recommending a global index tracker is Reckless - looking at past performance over the last 20 to 30 years.  Of course if the OP is wanting a safe haven for his money - then a 5% cash savings account is the best place for it.  StJP is one of the most recklesss things the OP could do with his money IMHO.

Experienced investors, or those with good nerves, will like you be aware that global index tracker funds are a good long term cheap way of investing.
However when an advisor is dealing with a new client they assess their risk tolerance, and most are not willing to invest in something that might fall 40% at some point. So most end up in funds that contain less than 100% equity. Also even investors who say they would be OK with that, will still panic when it happens and ask the advisor to pull out, usually at the worst time.
So advisors will not normally recommend a 100% equity investment for clients, as they could be accused of being reckless at a later date by a panicking client.
Most 100% equity investors are DIY and not using advisors anyway.

That last comment, if true and not anecdotal, is interesting. Does that mean that advisors are risk averse?  Or DIY are too risk happy? Are DIY not properly assessing their risk as they should? 

dunstonh

Cus said:

Albermarle said:

wiltshiregirl69 said:

ColdIron said:

wiltshiregirl69 said:

Someone may have already said this but the best thing to do is to get an account at Vanguard (UK website) and choose a global index tracker

Few people have the risk appetite for 100% equities. SJP may be expensive but they are not reckless (remember we know nothing about the OP's objectives and circumstance) and I very much doubt they would suggest such a portfolio.

No...they might have suggested a combination bond/equity portfolio.  Bonds...as most near retirees have discovered are not risk adverse.  I don't think recommending a global index tracker is Reckless - looking at past performance over the last 20 to 30 years.  Of course if the OP is wanting a safe haven for his money - then a 5% cash savings account is the best place for it.  StJP is one of the most recklesss things the OP could do with his money IMHO.

Experienced investors, or those with good nerves, will like you be aware that global index tracker funds are a good long term cheap way of investing.
However when an advisor is dealing with a new client they assess their risk tolerance, and most are not willing to invest in something that might fall 40% at some point. So most end up in funds that contain less than 100% equity. Also even investors who say they would be OK with that, will still panic when it happens and ask the advisor to pull out, usually at the worst time.
So advisors will not normally recommend a 100% equity investment for clients, as they could be accused of being reckless at a later date by a panicking client.
Most 100% equity investors are DIY and not using advisors anyway.

That last comment, if true and not anecdotal, is interesting. Does that mean that advisors are risk averse?  Or DIY are too risk happy? Are DIY not properly assessing their risk as they should? 

Advisers recommend on the basis of suitability.   They consider the risk profile of the individual along with behaviour risk and capacity for loss.     

In my experience, the minute you start turning percentages into monetary values and give people an indication of the losses they will suffer (not if but when), then you usually find that the average consumer cannot handle it.

You have been here long enough to see the threads from people moaning about a short term negative period.  Or even posters that spent months discussing it and putting it off and then pulling the trigger only to post a month later that they are 1% down and now panicking.