St. James’s Place and The Ongoing Advice Controversy: A Catalyst for Industry-wide Reflection

By Steve Conley

28 February 2024

The recent developments at St. James’s Place (SJP) have ignited a crucial conversation within the financial advice sector about the integrity of ongoing advice fees and the broader implications for client service and fee justification. This situation serves as a pivotal moment for the industry, urging a reevaluation of practices and standards.

Key Points:

• SJP’s Financial Provision: SJP has acknowledged the need for a £426 million provision for potential client fee refunds. This move addresses failures in delivering or evidencing ongoing services for clients paying such fees, a challenge highlighted prior to their Salesforce CRM implementation in 2021.
• Impact on SJP: The controversy has led to a significant 66% decrease in SJP’s share price over the last year, marking substantial reputational damage. In response, SJP has deactivated ongoing fees for an additional 2% of clients and introduced measures to prevent similar issues.
• Wider Industry Implications: The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is intensifying its focus on the advice sector, particularly on how ongoing fees are justified. This scrutiny comes as part of a broader regulatory effort to ensure that services provided offer fair value to clients.
• Consumer Duty and Fair Value: The challenge for firms now is not just to deliver ongoing services but to prove that these services offer fair value. Research indicates that while 90% of consumers see value in ongoing advice, defining and evidencing this value remains complex.
• Settlements and Legal Engagements: AMK Legal has settled 4,000 claims with SJP, with 8,000 more pending. These settlements, recovering around £12 million for clients, underscore the issues around ‘unsuitable advice’ and the need for transparency.
• SJP’s Response to the Crisis: Following an increase in complaints, SJP’s extensive provision for client refunds signifies a commitment to addressing these concerns. This approach is part of a broader strategy to align with the FCA’s consumer duty requirements.
• Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) Adjudication: The FOS’s rulings in favour of AMK Legal highlight the need for a substantial financial review to justify ongoing advice fees, challenging SJP’s previous justifications based on minimal client contact.
• Proactive Measures by SJP: Efforts include eliminating exit fees, segmenting charges more transparently, and revising the complaints process. These steps aim to enhance transparency and fairness in client service.
• Industry Reflection and Reform: The unfolding scenario at SJP and the subsequent legal and regulatory challenges underscore the need for the industry to reassess its value proposition. It highlights the importance of aligning practices with principles of transparency, accountability, and client value.

Conclusion:

The episode involving SJP represents a critical juncture for the financial advice sector. It calls for a shift towards more ethical, client-focused practices, emphasising the need for transparency, integrity, and the delivery of genuine value. As the industry navigates this transformative period, the ultimate goal is to not only meet regulatory standards and consumer expectations but to set new benchmarks for excellence in client service. This chapter in SJP’s history is not merely about addressing past failures but about pioneering a future where financial advice is synonymous with trust, fairness, and client-centricity.

---

Q&A: Understanding the St. James’s Place Advisory Fee Saga

Q1: What initiated the recent scrutiny of St. James’s Place (SJP)?

A1: The scrutiny began with the revelation that SJP had failed to deliver, or at least to evidence, ongoing services for clients who were paying ongoing advice fees. This led to a £426 million provision for potential client fee refunds.

Q2: How has the controversy affected SJP’s market standing?

A2: SJP experienced a significant impact, with its share price plummeting by over 66% in the last year, highlighting the severe reputational damage suffered by the company.

Q3: What broader implications does the SJP saga have for the financial advice sector?

A3: The situation has prompted the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to increase its scrutiny of the advice sector, especially concerning the justification of ongoing fees and the delivery of fair value to clients.

Q4: What does ‘fair value’ mean in the context of ongoing advice fees?

A4: ‘Fair value’ refers to the necessity for firms to not only deliver ongoing services but also to prove that these services offer substantial value to the client. The concept is subjective and encompasses aspects like peace of mind, reassurance, and the security of having a trusted adviser.

Q5: What legal actions have been taken in response to the SJP issue?

A5: AMK Legal has settled 4,000 claims with SJP, with a further 8,000 cases pending. These actions have reclaimed approximately £12 million for clients and highlight the issues surrounding refunds for ongoing advice fees and investments deemed as ‘unsuitable advice’.

Q6: How has SJP responded to the crisis and the increase in complaints?

A6: In response to the crisis and a significant increase in complaints, SJP announced a substantial provision for potential client refunds and implemented measures such as deactivating ongoing fees for an additional 2% of clients to prevent future discrepancies.

Q7: What was the outcome of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) adjudication?

A7: The FOS adjudication favoured AMK Legal’s stance, challenging SJP’s justification of ongoing advice fees based on minimal contact. The ruling emphasised the need for a comprehensive financial review to justify such fees.

Q8: What proactive measures has SJP taken to address the issues?

A8: SJP has taken several steps, including scrapping exit fees, separating charges into clearer categories, and enhancing the complaints process to ensure greater transparency and fairness in client service.

Q9: What does this mean for the future of the financial advice sector?

A9: The SJP saga and subsequent regulatory and legal challenges serve as a wake-up call for the industry to reassess its practices. There’s a clear need for firms to embrace transparency, accountability, and to ensure the delivery of genuine value to clients.

Q10: How can consumers ensure they are receiving fair value for ongoing advice fees?

A10: Consumers should seek transparency from their financial advisers regarding the services provided for ongoing fees. Engaging in open conversations about the value and outcomes of these services is crucial. Additionally, clients should feel empowered to question and understand the breakdown of fees and the specific benefits they derive from ongoing advice.

.