View more on these topics

SJP keeps ‘cautious’ stance on DB transfers as adviser numbers surge

Outgoing SJP chief executive David Bellamy

St James’ Place says it is still cautious about defined benefit transfers despite seeing an increase in enquiries.

This morning, the firm reported net inflows of funds under management of £4.3bn for the six months to 30 June, up from £3.1bn for the same period in 2016, but says that one of the potential drivers of business, DB transfers is “not without risk” and “complicated”.

Chief executive David Bellamy writes: “In 2017, we have seen further interest from clients exploring the opportunity to transfer out of DB pension schemes, driven by high transfer values being offered to them as low gilt yields inflate scheme liabilities.

“This is a market that is growing rapidly but it is not without risk given the complicated nature of assessing the benefits or otherwise of such transfers. We will continue to approach this market with a degree of caution.”

SJP under the microscope: Where does the profit come from?

The national wealth manager continues to grow its adviser numbers, which now stand at 3,540 after a 3.7 per cent increase since the start of the year.

Bellamy says that scaling up advice firms from one man bands is helping them serve customers better.

He says: “As our client base grows, so too does the scale of our partner businesses as they develop from largely single adviser practices, into small and medium size businesses, adding value to the clients they attract and serving them well. We see this as very positive development, which bodes well for the sustainability and succession of our partner businesses, and continued growth.”

SJP now has a total of £83bn in funds under management, returning an operating profit of £397.3m.

Bellamy is set to leave SJP at the end of this year after 11 years at the helm.

Recommended

10

SJP client wins redress over ongoing advice charges

SJP ups compensation for client after she struggles to get hold of adviser despite paying ongoing fees A client of St James’s Place has won redress after complaining she was charged for ongoing advice but had only met her adviser twice in five years. Sue Preece-Murray told The Sunday Times that ongoing advice charges from […]

Magnifying-Glass-in-Hand-700.jpg
33

SJP under the microscope: Where does the profit come from?

St James’s Place’s 2016 results dropped a few weeks ago, and it proved to be another bumper year for the advice market giant. SJP reported profits of £140.6m, alongside record gross inflows of £11.4bn over the year. But the firm has come under fire in recent months over complaints and charges. Money Marketing has dug into the […]

Compliance tip: Commission disclosure for pure protection contracts

We have seen confusion around commission disclosure on pure protection contracts (e.g. term assurance), partially due to interpretation of existing rules under the Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook. The new Insurance Distribution Directive introduces updated disclosure requirements from February 2018, which should hopefully simplify matters. Currently, commission on pure protection contracts only needs to be […]

Auto enrolment – so far so good?

Jamie Clark – Business Development Manager The recent report from the Pensions Policy Institute demonstrates the sheer scale of auto-enrolment so far and what we can expect in the future. We’ve pulled out the key information to save you reading the full report. Auto enrolment in numbers Sources: Pensions Policy Institute, The Future Book: Unravelling […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 7 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. God help us all if SJP advisers are let loose on the DB market.

    • Jeremy Stuart-Cox 27th July 2017 at 11:06 am

      The FCA’s concerns in the DB market are being driven by the actions of IFAs….why do you begrudge SJP their involvement? Or is this just another whinge because the name of SJP appears in an article which in turn triggers an automatic outpouring of outrage from so called IFAs.

  2. So do these results mean even greater losses in the advice business to be subsidised by the parent company, even though this is supposed to be explicitly forbidden under FCA regulations?

    • Julian Stevens 27th July 2017 at 7:32 pm

      The FCA doesn’t impose its regulations on SJP in quite the same way as it does on everyone else. That, at least in part, is what SJP enables it to be so hugely successful. Success is all very well, but when the playing field clearly isn’t level…

  3. David Cathcart 27th July 2017 at 5:09 pm

    I am only speaking from experience

  4. Robert Milligan 28th July 2017 at 10:18 am

    “Hugely successful” so was Mandoff until!! Why would any IFA sell their sole and Join SJP,,,,I can assort you its not in the clients interest, I find the transferring of polices to its IFA arm disgraceful and untenable, THE FCA should ban any relationship between the two and the Financial arrangement is pure obfuscation, and they are not Tied Agents, criminal

    • Jeremy Stuart-Cox 28th July 2017 at 12:43 pm

      The substantial difference was that madoff did not have the regulators all over him on a regular basis as is the case with SJP.Such a comparison is naive at best!
      In answer to the question why would an IFA join SJP, the answers could be marketing, brand, IT support, compliance, admin, an exit plan & a realisation that a large proportion of bog standard IFAs can operate comfortably within their structure.
      Finally to describe their business model as criminal either shows the irrational view held by IFAs of SJP or a lack of understanding of regulatory requirements

Leave a comment