SJP Pension - Is it safe?

mrg9999

I believe it's generally safe, but what is to stop someone  like a large company operating at the edges of the law  or money manager  buying up a portion and then they go bust, in to administration in the future and the FCA  take  long time to act and much of the benefit is lost in charges.

MallyGirl

There are many reasons you might want to avoid an SJP pension but the risk of it being taken over by Phillip Green is a new one on me

gm0

AFAIK

You run the same risk with any private or publicly listed provider.  It can fail.  You then have to rely on protection (FSCS) and the custody arrangements for funds.   And the speed with which access is restored to IT and assets.  FCA to regulate "normal" business behaviour of the regulated.

Legal but innappropriate abuse of pension assets by company sponsors or platform owners is harder - post Maxwell.

Open thievery - intervening with trading, payment redirection, record keeping in a sophisticated way to siphon funds. Is quite difficult but one cannot honestly say it is impossible to foresee a scenario where thieves could make it happen in a company with weak controls and oversight.


A provider whch runs a lot of illiquid and offshore investments alongside funds and exchage traded - the winding up costs can be higher and timescales more prolonged.  Which is a reason for the regular mainstream investor to avoid those - unless they want access to those things.

But there is so far as I can see nothing material or special about SJP as a Pension operator that differs from iWeb, II, Fidelity, HL, Aviva etc..

There is a well earned by bitter experience folk memory of ENRON (investing the employee pension fund largely in its own shares) and of pre Maxwell comunal pot/db and DC pensions being "captured" by the sponsoring employer and assets as a borrowing facility - (abused as a corporate piggybank)

There are good reasons to dislike the SJP pension product - mainly the high total cost drag and the presence of exit charges for existing customers and the arrival of top up initial charges for new contributions for new customers to replace them

But this is not one of those reasons

Hoenir

mrg9999 said:

I believe it's generally safe, but what is to stop some criminal like Phillip Green, or Wealthtek buying up a portion and then they go bust, in to administration in the future and the FCA like above take too long to act.

Vast difference between being a shareholder and running the business itself.  

dunstonh

I believe it's generally safe, but what is to stop some criminal like Phillip Green, or Wealthtek buying up a portion and then they go bust, in to administration in the future and the FCA like above take too long to act.

refs: https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/insights/advisory/business-restructuring/wealthtek-administration

Not at all comparable and you may wish to edit your post to remove your libellous statement.

You should be more concerned about being with one of the most expensive distribution channels going and the number of very poor performing funds it has than issues of cases in niche areas that went off the beaten track.

mrg9999

dunstonh said:

I believe it's generally safe, but what is to stop some criminal like Phillip Green, or Wealthtek buying up a portion and then they go bust, in to administration in the future and the FCA like above take too long to act.

refs: https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/insights/advisory/business-restructuring/wealthtek-administration

Not at all comparable and you may wish to edit your post to remove your libellous statement.

You should be more concerned about being with one of the most expensive distribution channels going and the number of very poor performing funds it has than issues of cases in niche areas that went off the beaten track.

What's libellous about it. I asked "What is to stop (someone) like ..."

Surely your statement about SJP is equally insulting to them. "You should be more concerned about being with one of the most expensive distribution channels going"

Since I've been with them my pots have mostly grown except during 911 when everything dropped, but they soon recovered.

ColdIron

A rising tide floats all boats but there are no two ways around it, SJP are expensive and widely recognised as so. Their funds are broadly mediocre and they feature regularly in BestInvest's 'Spot the Dog' publications

But their pensions are as safe as their competitors, they are a profitable FTSE 250 company and with good reason

dunstonh

Surely your statement about SJP is equally insulting to them. "You should be more concerned about being with one of the most expensive distribution channels going"

Nothing is insulting about pointing out a fact.   Maybe your reference to insulting reflects your embarrassment for paying those massive charges for so long.    The FCA published the mean charges in July and SJP were more than double that. 

Since I've been with them my pots have mostly grown except during 911 when everything dropped, but they soon recovered.

You would be worried if they hadn't  but we can confidently say that you have paid a lot more in charges than the average consumer and:

2023: https://www.ftadviser.com/investments/2023/08/14/more-than-half-of-dog-assets-are-held-in-sjp-funds/

What's libellous about it. I asked "What is to stop (someone) like ..."

You accused someone of being a criminal (you have now edited that out)

Ibrahim5

Could I remind everyone to be nice to each other on the forum please.