St James's Place: Fees, performance, and what you should be asking
- Noel Watson CFPᵀᴹ - Chartered Wealth Manager
- 3 days ago
- 16 min read
Updated: 2 days ago
Introduction
2023 was a challenging year for St James's Place (SJP). Several press articles described how SJP's exit fees would be abolished for new clients from 2025 onwards in order to comply with the Consumer Duty rules. This caused their share price to fall by almost 40% over the year as the market altered its expectation for potentially reduced future revenues. It wasn't the first time SJP appeared in the news, with regular coverage surrounding their supposedly high fees, poor performance, and sales culture. It's probably fair to say that many Independent Financial Advisers (IFAs) were only too pleased to see this coverage and were actively discussing this on social media at the time!
Fast forward to August 2025, and the share price has more than tripled from a 2024 low. A new fee structure has just gone live (we have covered this in detail). This article reviews the old pricing model, which will remain in effect for those invested in pensions and investment bonds until the exit fee window has expired. It also covers investment performance (which we'd expect to be broadly similar in both pricing models) and examines whether criticism of poor performance is justified. It finally suggests the questions you should consider asking when evaluating a potential SJP adviser.
Over time, the two SJP-related blogs will be merged.
The Company
SJP was founded by Mark Weinberg and Mike Wilson in 1991. It is currently a FTSE 100 company with around £190 billion under management and over a million clients, looked after by nearly 5,000 advisers. These advisers may be self-employed (known as partners) or employees of the self-employed partners. The average client has around £190,000 invested, with each adviser looking after just over 200 clients.
SJP operates an Academy that assists second-career professionals in transitioning into the financial advisory sector. Having spent a couple of months in the Academy (I realised that SJP wouldn't be my ideal long-term home), I can vouch for the quality and investment that SJP has put into this. At the time, there was nothing comparable in the marketplace.
How does SJP charge?
There has been much coverage around SJP fees. Many of these articles contain flawed reasoning, errors and biases. Some examples include:
Comparing SJP fees to non-advised (DIY) alternatives.
Confusing product-specific charges and assuming both initial and exit charges apply to a particular product.
Below, we outline the fee structure and compare it with alternative options. Before reading this, you may want to read our deep dive on financial advice fees
SJP offers restricted advice through a vertically integrated model. This effectively means that the adviser can only offer SJP's or their approved partners' range of investment products, and all charges are bundled into one ongoing fee. In contrast, an IFA will select financial products from the whole market and give a breakdown of fees (platform, adviser and investment funds). SJP's new fee model will feature a more explicit fee breakdown, but this article analyses fees for the old pricing structure. SJP have differing charging setups depending on whether you are investing in an ISA/unit trust or a pension/investment bond, and their charges are detailed on their website
Pensions/Investment bonds
For pensions and investment bonds, the SJP client pays no explicit initial fees (although the partner receives 3%, which SJP funds), meaning the client has 100% of their money invested from day 1. The ongoing annual management charges (which cover adviser and SJP costs) are typically 1.5%, with fund costs of around 0.4%, totalling circa 1.9% per annum.
In addition to the above, transaction costs must also be considered. We estimate these to average around 0.3%.
Total ongoing costs are, therefore, around 2.2% per annum. If you leave SJP within six years, you may be liable to pay an exit fee, which can be up to 6%.
ISAs/Unit trusts
In contrast to pensions/investment bonds, there is an initial fee of 5% for ISA/unit trust investments (with the adviser receiving 3% as with pensions/investment bonds). However, some SJP partners have been known to reduce or waive these fees. It's worth noting that these fees can also apply to topping up existing assets. A couple using their ISA allowance could pay their SJP partner an additional £2,000 per year (2 x £20,000 * 5%) in addition to ongoing fees.
Annual charges (which, as a reminder, include adviser fees) are lower than those for pensions/investment bonds, at around 1.55%. Including transaction costs, this works out to approximately 1.85% per annum.
Fee example
Making sense of the various fee components can be tricky. We've created a spreadsheet in an attempt to clarify this. Please feel free to get in touch if you would like a copy or disagree with any of the numbers.
Our sample client has a starting balance of £100,000 for their ISA and £75,000 for their pension. They contribute £10,000 each to their pension and ISA annually. Investment growth is assumed to be 5% per annum. Note that transaction costs are excluded from this analysis.
For the ISA, we can see that for every contribution (both initial and ongoing), the adviser receives 3% and SJP 2%.
For the pension, SJP effectively subsidises the initial advice fee, which, as mentioned above, is clawed back (on a sliding scale) if the client leaves within six years of the given contribution.
The table below shows the total fees across the ISA and SIPP. For our example client, we estimate the fees to average around 2% per annum over a ten-year period.
How does this compare?
SJP has previously stated that they are not the most expensive in the market, with research by Grant Thornton placing them at the mid-lower end of their peer group. This peer analysis was repeated by Ernst & Young in 2023 and shows an annual Reduction in Yield of 2.2% for a £100,000 investment over ten years.
Research by the FCA indicates initial fees of around 2.4%, with total ongoing fees at around 1.9%. Many IFA firms have headline total fees (for both initial and ongoing) lower than these averages. But, and it's a big but(!), these firms may not be a viable option for the average SJP client with £190,000 invested, with many having minimum ongoing fees in the region of £2,000-£3,000 per annum. We made this point in a client case study where we showed that for a client with £1.45m invested, our annual total fees of around 0.85% is less than half what SJP would charge, but for the client with investable assets of £190,000 point, we'd question whether our fees could more than cover the value we were adding.
Performance
As with fees, there is often a misunderstanding regarding SJP investment performance. SJP fund/portfolio returns are stated net of all costs (adviser, funds and platform), and an apples-to-apples performance comparison is not always undertaken. For example, some might compare the return of an SJP fund with another non-SJP fund whose returns haven't been adjusted for adviser and platform fees.
On their website, SJP go into detail on their investment management approach, emphasising the external consultant expertise they can draw upon. Below, we analyse how their performance has stacked up versus a couple of benchmarks.
Challenges of analysing SJP's returns
Managed Funds Pension Portfolio
We begin by analysing the Managed Funds Portfolio (pension), one of the five pension portfolios highlighted above. However, two issues limit our research.
Issue One: The asset allocation/holdings in the portfolio are regularly adjusted.
For example, when comparing the portfolio holdings for April 2025 and March 2024:
Diversified bond has reduced from 5% to 2%.
Emerging market equity has increased from 3% to 5%.
Global Absolute Return has been removed.
Global equity has reduced from 9% to 8%.
Global Government bond has increased from 2% to 13%.
Global Government inflation-linked bond is a new arrival with a weighting of 3%.
Investment-grade corporate bonds have reduced from 9% to 7%.
If we go back further in time, we can see how different the portfolio looked!
Without access to historical portfolio holdings, it can be challenging to undertake meaningful analysis, as discussed below.
Challenge Two: The model portfolios may not reflect what SJP clients hold, and therefore, the returns they have actually experienced
The Managed funds pension portfolio factsheet states:
"Portfolio fund allocations are not rebalanced automatically. Client Portfolios are likely to have different fund allocations and, therefore, individual investment experience may vary".
Put another way, SJP clients are unable to invest in these portfolios directly and are therefore unlikely to experience the same returns as the SJP adviser:
may choose to rebalance the client's fund holdings periodically.
may not switch underlying portfolio funds simultaneously with the portfolio.
This has been addressed by SJP with the Polaris range, but as this fund range was only launched in 2022, we do not yet have a sufficient track record to make a meaningful comparison.
Multi-asset funds
SJP have three multi-asset funds which have featured in the Managed Funds Pension portfolio:
These funds have long track records, which is beneficial for performance analysis purposes. However, the fact that they have been around for so long means we may have to consider survivorship bias - what happened to the SJP funds that didn't generate the desired returns and were dropped from the portfolio?
Managed Fund portfolio performance
Raw performance vs ARC
We will start by comparing the Managed Funds Portfolio to an Asset Risk Consultants (ARC) benchmark. We examined ARC in detail when evaluating the "No Brainer" portfolio NBP). The portfolio is benchmarked against ARC Sterling Steady Growth, which is an aggregate of contributed portfolios with risks between 60% and 80% relative to equities. According to the factsheet, the Managed Funds portfolio (purple line) has outperformed the ARC benchmark (123.5% vs. 95.1%) since its launch in January 2011 through to the end of April 2025. On the face of it, this appears to be a good outcome, especially as mentioned above, since the SJP portfolios are net of all fees, which is not the case for all ARC contributors.
However, there are two things to be aware of:
The ARC benchmarks aren't particularly difficult to outperform
As we detailed in our analysis of the NBP, a simple equity/bond portfolio dramatically outperformed the ARC benchmarks over the last eight years (the youngest fund in the NBP portfolio was launched in late 2016). The Vanguard LifeStrategy (LS) range of funds comprises a mix of equities and bonds, with historical returns that are not significantly different from those of the NBP portfolios and have the benefit of a longer track record. If we compare the 60% and 80% (equity) LS funds from their launch in mid-2011 to the end of June 2025, we can see that both have outperformed ARC Steady Growth, in the 80% equities case generating more than double the return (99% vs 217%)!
Risk also has to be considered.
As we outline in our detailed analysis of our portfolios, raw performance alone is insufficient; volatility must also be taken into account. If we compare the relative risk (measured in terms of volatility) over the last ten years to the end of June 2025, we can see that the volatility of LS 60 and ARC Sterling Steady Growth is broadly in line, while LS80 has far more volatility (it sits further to the right).
The challenge we face when trying to analyse the performance of the Managed Funds pension portfolio is that we lack sufficient data to draw any meaningful conclusions. While it outperformed the ARC benchmark on a raw performance basis, it may have achieved this by taking more risk (i.e., being closer to LS80). If this were the case, we would argue that this is not genuine outperformance.
Multi-asset fund performance
Raw performance vs ARC
The three SJP multi-asset funds listed above all currently have equity content in the 60%-70% range, so ARC Sterling Steady Growth (60%-80% equity) seems like the obvious benchmark. The youngest fund, SJP Balanced Managed, was launched in July 2006. We therefore begin by examining the raw performance from August 1, 2006, to June 30, 2025. As with the SJP Managed funds portfolio, all three multi-asset funds have outperformed the ARC Sterling Steady Growth benchmark in terms of raw performance.
Risk-adjusted performance vs ARC
If we examine risk-adjusted returns over the last 15 years to June 30th 2025, this outperformance is partly explained by the SJP funds having higher volatility compared to the ARC Sterling Steady Growth benchmark. In fact, they are probably closer to ARC Sterling Equity Risk (80%-110% equities) in terms of volatility.
Risk-adjusted performance vs LS
If we examine the SJP Multi-Asset funds on a risk-adjusted basis against LS over the past decade to June 30, 2025, we can see that LS has achieved superior risk-adjusted returns, with LS60 generating higher returns than the three SJP multi-asset funds at a lower risk level.
Real world comparison
However, this is not a truly fair comparison. As mentioned previously, the SJP funds are net of all costs. In an effort to provide a fairer comparison, we will do the following:
Create a portfolio containing 50% LS60 and 50% LS80 (effectively LS70). This will represent the IFA portfolio.
Create an SJP portfolio split equally between the three SJP multi-asset funds.
Both portfolios will be rebalanced quarterly, and as shown below, they have similar volatility (which was our target when choosing the LS split).
In an attempt to make a fair adjustment for fees for the IFA portfolio, we will assume a "typical" client that Pyrford Financial Planning works with - someone approaching retirement with between £500,000 and £2,000,000 of investable assets. Below is a client we took on in 2024 (case study mentioned above). They paid an initial fee of £5,000, and their ongoing platform and advisory costs total 0.58% per annum.
We will deduct 1% per annum from the gross returns of the IFA portfolio (in reality, this is likely slightly conservative/high for our example client). As can be seen from the performance comparison over the last decade, the IFA portfolio has generated superior returns (89% vs 73% while taking only a small amount of additional risk.
Of course, the usual caveats apply:
Past performance is not a guide to future returns.
The IFA may use a portfolio that is completely different to LS/No Brainer and may have inferior performance.
The IFA may charge more than our assumptions (initial and/or ongoing fees).
The important questions that a potential client of SJP should be asking
Below, we present our views on the three areas that SJP believes contribute most to client outcomes.
Investment management
As discussed above, the SJP investment management approach does not necessarily lead to market-beating performance, in our view, falling somewhere between the ARC benchmarks and a low-cost, globally diversified approach. While some market participants can genuinely outperform the market, they are unlikely to make their offerings available to those in the retail space (be that via SJP or IFAs). Given this, we therefore believe that most people are best served with a low-cost, globally diversified portfolio. In the absence of a genuine market-beating edge, we'd struggle to ascribe much value to an investment management approach, whether that of SJP or anyone else in the retail investment management space, and believe investment management to be commoditised. We'd recommend not selecting an adviser because they offered supposed great historical performance (in fact, we'd probably consider it a warning sign and steer clear!).
2. Product and Platform
Our website breaks down where we believe we add value, part of which is ensuring lifetime taxation is optimised.
However, the platform and tax wrappers used are mere tools to get the job done, and we consider these to be broadly commoditised.
3. Advice
Given the above, it's clear that we believe the vast majority of value lies in an ongoing relationship with a financial adviser rather than in the products and investments themselves. We've written about this in many articles, and we are passionate that clients should demand value from their financial adviser beyond investment management and fund reviews/switching (something that, unfortunately, is all too common).
We believe all clients would benefit from having a financial plan. The ongoing financial advice relationship should be an immersive experience, offering much more than an annual review to discuss investments. This type of relationship, and financial planning in general, requires a significant amount of adviser time. Given that many financial planners have invested considerable time in their offerings and are highly qualified, it will come at a cost which might not be viable for some (potential) clients.
We believe there are three challenges with the SJP pricing model:
1. Providing a full financial planning service to the average client
For the average SJP client with £190,000 invested, the adviser receives less than £1,000 annually for providing ongoing financial planning and advice. Only around 25% of the ongoing fee (0.5% of a typical total of 2%) goes to the adviser, who should be delivering the vast majority of the value. We suggest that providing a comprehensive financial planning offering will be challenging at these fee levels, and we'd prefer to see the adviser take a greater share, which we understand SJP will implement with the new pricing structure.
2. The adviser is incentivised to find new business
The SJP adviser receives six times as much for every new pound of new business that they bring on versus what they are paid for existing client money (3% vs 0.5%), and you need to be comfortable that their focus is on looking after you and your financial plan rather than looking for new business.
3. SJP does not (officially) discount for larger clients
There is also a question to be asked for those with larger pots. For example, a client with £2,000,000 invested will pay approximately £10,000 pa to their SJP adviser for ongoing advice. This should enable the adviser to offer a comprehensive financial planning service that may be more challenging to provide to clients with a smaller investment pot. However, it also means that the client will pay in the region of £25,000 to £30,000 per year for non-advice services (see example below). Given that platform costs at this level can be had for 0.1% or less (£2,000) and investment management for around 0.3% (£6,000), you must be confident that you are receiving value for the additional five-figure sum you pay each year.
The fee breakdown for an example client (a couple) joining SJP with £1,000,000 in pensions and £1,000,000 in ISAs, and investing £40,000 into an ISA each year over a ten-year period, is shown below. Total fees over the decade exceed £500,000.
We cover the seven questions you should be asking a potential adviser in a separate article, but here are a few for someone considering engaging with SJP:
What will you, as my potential financial adviser, be doing for me?
If the answer is "to give you access to great investments", push harder!
What value am I getting for the fees unrelated to your advice?
Again, if the answer is "to access great investments", push back!
What will you charge me for new investments?
We believe that investment top-ups should be included in the ongoing fee.
(For those with more to invest than the average SJP client.) Why am I paying the same in percentage terms as your average client?
While complexity may increase with a higher investment balance, we don't believe that someone with £1,000,000 invested should pay ten times that of someone with £100,000 invested.
5. How many clients do you have?
If it is much more than 150, we'd question whether the adviser can offer a meaningful financial planning relationship.
6. Can you give me a breakdown of exit fees
SJP's client funds under management retention rate is approximately 95%. For those who choose to leave, exit fees for pensions or investment bonds may pose an issue. In late 2024, we spoke to a potential client who felt that they weren't receiving the financial planning they were seeking from their SJP adviser. The one issue is that they would have to pay an £18,000 exit fee if they were to leave. They decided to wait until the exit fees had expired, which they considered the least worst option. For our example client, with £1,000,000 invested in a pension, this exit fee could be as high as £60,000 if they were to leave SJP early in the relationship. While this is unlikely, it's always worth understanding exactly what you may have to pay should you wish to part ways at some point in the future.
Conclusion
We have a lot of respect for SJP, and we think that many IFAs are secretly jealous of SJP's marketing machine! We have many friends who work for SJP, and we often find ourselves defending them on various forums when they have been unfairly treated.
In terms of their client proposition, there are a few takeaways:
SJP isn't necessarily expensive compared to the alternative options for their average client with £190,000 invested, particularly if you can avoid paying the 5% initial fees on ISAs. For clients with larger investment balances, the proposition might be considered less compelling.
While not offering anything that a low-cost, globally diversified portfolio doesn't, SJP's investment approach is unlikely to yield the poor returns that some like to point out.
Some may prefer working with a FTSE 100 company over a smaller IFA firm. We see this as similar to taking your car for a service. Some may prefer the smaller specialist who often has a far lower hourly rate, while others prefer the reassurance of a franchised dealer and are willing to pay more for it. It's worth noting that independent financial advisers have access to investment firms that dwarf SJP in terms of size and resources. For example, Vanguard (the example portfolio used above) has over $10 trillion under management, while Dimensional Fund Advisors has Nobel laureates working with it.
We believe that the quality of the adviser is where the majority of value is added in an advisory relationship. A good restricted adviser may well deliver better client outcomes than a poor IFA. Of course, we believe the gold standard for financial planning remains working with an Independent, Chartered Financial Planning firm!
About Pyrford Financial Planning
Pyrford Financial Planning is an Independent Financial Adviser based in Weybridge, Surrey.
We specialise in retirement planning and provide independent financial advice, including pension and investment advice, and inheritance tax planning.
We offer a no-obligation introductory meeting, which will be held over Zoom.
Our office telephone number is 01932 645150.
Our address is No. 5 The Heights, Weybridge, Surrey, KT13 0NY.
Please note: This blog is for general information only and does not constitute advice. The information is aimed at retail clients only.
Although best efforts are made to ensure all information is accurate, you should not rely on this blog for your personal situation or planning.
The value of your investment can go down as well as up, and you may not get back the full amount you invested. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.
About the author
Noel is passionate about helping clients plan for retirement, preparing and guiding them through this key life transition. He has written a book on retirement planning and regularly publishes retirement research on this blog.
Comments