Whenever we put a story on the Money Marketing website with St James’s Place (SJP) in the headline, it seems to make its way very quickly to one of the most read on the site.
I’ve been tempted to write just ‘SJP’ as the headline, to see what happens. Will readers still flock to the story despite having no indication as to what the company has or hasn’t done?
Thank you to everyone who has helped and challenged me along the way. Balance is good
The same thing often occurs with articles on the Financial Conduct Authority.
Just look at our Month in Review section to get an idea. Both the advice giant and the regulator feature heavily, along with a couple of platform stories and some senior departures or people moves.
Over the years, I’ve also noticed how SJP and the FCA attract a fair bit of criticism from our online readers.
Of course, not everyone who reads the articles will share their thoughts. In fact, the page-views-to-comments ratio shows the majority don’t.
I just don’t buy the argument they can only do wrong in the eyes of advisers
But those who do comment on our site consistently seem to have a negative view of both organisations.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and we’re always keen to promote a healthy debate.
Cover story: No way out? SJP sees light on exit fees
At times the criticism is justified and both SJP and the FCA need to be held to account if they do something wrong.
However, I can’t help but think maybe we would all benefit from a few more discussions about what they do right.
I’m sure that will get a few laughs. Maybe, even, ‘Well, that’s impossible.’
The regulator’s Consumer Duty already appears to be doing what it set out to do. SJP has responded because of it
I just don’t buy the argument they can only do wrong in the eyes of advisers. As I say, I reckon that’s not the case anyway; it’s probably more about perception. Or maybe those who hold a more positive view do not feel the need to share it. Or they don’t want to become embroiled in controversy.
Sometimes I get the impression SJP and the FCA can’t do right for doing wrong.
Yes, there are arguments both could have acted differently in the past, or faster, or could have engaged better. But now we are seeing action from both. Better late than never, I say.
The regulator’s Consumer Duty already appears to be doing what it set out to do. SJP has responded because of it. You can be the judge on whether it’s good or bad news for the advice profession.
Don’t laugh, but maybe we would all benefit from a few more discussions about what the two of them do right
The FCA doesn’t want consumers to have to contend with “unreasonable exit fees”. SJP gives the impression it will no longer be able to justify its early withdrawal charges, so they are on the way out.
Talking of which, so am I. This is my last editor’s view for MM.
It has been an absolute pleasure to be part of this fantastic brand. Thank you to everyone who has helped and challenged me along the way. Balance is good.
Katey Pigden is editor of Money Marketing. Contact her at: katey.pigden@moneymarketing.co.uk
This article featured in the November 2023 edition of MM.
If you would like to subscribe to the monthly magazine, please click here.
I would love to hear from anyone!!! What has SJP got right, for the Client,,, I can give you many Rights for the SJP Salesman and Car Park attendant’s.
Hi Robert, I guess a lot of it will depend on what the clients think really and not the rest of us. There’s good and bad in all walks of life.
That may be the case if the clients were in any way informed about money, investments, and what they were actually signing up for. If clients could make their own decisions there wouldn’t be any need for advisors.
The FCA doesn’t want consumers to have to contend with “unreasonable exit fees”. Oh really? And why? What hard evidence do the FCA have that exit fees are an issue?
The CD is confusing ‘pricing’ (and pricing models) with ‘value’. Value, as we all should know and by the evidence of the CD the FCA does not, is subjective.
SJP does not have an ‘exit charge’ problem – as long as the client knows what he’s getting into. And even if he does not that’s the client’s fault. Caveat emptor and all that.
It is universally regulationism that is the problem we all face (and by ‘all’ I mean everyone on the planet). Regulationism is just another form of central planning by bureaucracy.
And lastly, the FCA can never be ‘held to account’. It has zero effective democratic, legal or financial accountability and no skin in the game. It is utterly unaccountable. It is an affront to the free society. Just apply Tony Benn’s five questions:-
“What power have you got?
“Where did you get it from?
“In whose interests do you use it?
“To whom are you accountable?
“How do we get rid of you?”
“Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.”
Think on that.
Hi Steven, thanks for the comment. Interesting thoughts.
The very best of luck with your future endeavours Katey!
Before you leave however, please do remember the following:
11 years ago the regulator introduced new formal rules on charging practices and disclosure, (RDR). Over the last 11 years the UK’s largest supplier of financial advice services has been allowed to blatantly breach those rules. It is only now being brought into line, but is inexplicably being given two more years grace to put it right.
I admire your positive attitude but the facts are the facts!
Hi Ian, thank you very much. I did go a bit more in depth about it all in the cover feature this relates to: https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/analysis/cover-story-no-way-out-sjp-sees-light-on-exit-fees/
The reason why SJP is so commented on is because they appear to be the firm that a lot of advisers love to hate (apart from those who are already part of, or who are considering joining their partnership).
Part of it is based on the politics of envy because they appear to have been doing well over the years. Since RDR their partnership (salesforce) has increased in numbers from 1,788 to 4,766. Whilst during the same period, a lot of other firms appear to have been treading water. They actually now account for 12.8% of the total adviser market which is a staggering figure, when you focus on it.
There is also the issue of disclosure following the RDR. SJP appear to have benefitted from beneficial treatment from the FCA where they could basically continue as if the RDR had never happened. Where as IFAs who were used to taking commission were forced to charge fees. This was because SPJ have a ‘vertically integrated’ business model where the advice charge could be bundled together with other charges making it more difficult for consumers to work out how much they were actually paying for the advice.
The increase in adviser numbers has largely come about because former IFA’s have joined them to take advantage of their ‘Practice buyout’ scheme. Rather than sell to an IFA consolidator they have joined SJP. Ensuring that they will have a ready made market for their business when they decide to retire.
The bottom line is that there is too much of the ‘Allied Dunbar’ about SJP. Whilst most of the financial services sector appear to have moved on. They appear to still encompass the ‘greed is good’philosophy that prevailed in the 1980’s.
Hi Tyrone, thanks for your comment. The love to hate take sounds about right to me. It is definitely a large figure for the advice market share.
SJP and their exit fees and vertical charging structure is the best example of why the FCA have failed. The FCA were told about SJP in 2012 when RDR came out yet have ignored all other parties to a level where the industry wondered i SJP had a hold over the FCA.
Finally the FCA bring out regulation which closes the door now the horse has bolted , just like everything they do
Good luck in your new job
Hi Mike, thank you very much.
The FCA does so many things wrong, mostly by failing to do its job, that it’s hard to see how there could be any balance of criticism. It lies about what it does (see https://www.fca.org.uk/about) and lies about being keen to encourage whistle blowing (by not only ignoring whistle blows but threatening whistle blowers with malicious action if they don’t back off). Perhaps MM could list its notable and commendable successes over the past 10 years.
Hi Julian, thanks for the comment. It’s my last day at MM today so won’t have time unfortunately but I’ll continue to read the site and look out for your posts.
I wonder, did he get ‘paid’ for this?
The negative reasoning is because both SJP AND the FCA are now only doing what those of us knew that they should have been doing for the past 15 years at least
Hi Edward, if you’re asking if I got paid then I’m afraid no more than my usual salary.
I did go into a bit more detail for the cover feature this relates to: https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/analysis/cover-story-no-way-out-sjp-sees-light-on-exit-fees/
If Early Withdrawal Charges really were an issue to clients (let’s not forget that is who the entire adviser community and FCA is there to serve) why did they choose to invest with SJP? There are plenty of firms out there who did not adopt that kind of charging model. If that kind of charging was so obscene why would the consumer proceed?
Or perhaps some of the regulars who comment on anything to do with SJP & the FCA don’t think the consumer is intelligent enough to make their own decisions…
The reason the consumer proceeds with exit fees is very simple, knowledge inequality. If a client was fairly presented with SJP charges, including exit fees, and given a comparison with an average IFA do you think the outcome would be the same? That’s before you’ve also fairly and openly explained the range of products available.
Suggesting it’s down to client intelligence is somewhat disingenuous in my view.
Because clients are human. And confused humans in front of well trained and reassuring salespeople don’t make objective decisions, they make emotional ones.
Hi Kieran, many thanks for your comment. I agree, I’m sure there are plenty of customers who are happy with the arrangement, if it has all been explained clearly and others who won’t be.