By Steve Conley, Founder, Academy of Life Planning
On the surface, St. James’s Place (SJP) projects resilience. Chief executive Mark FitzPatrick told the Financial Times that their revamped fees would “help customers compare and contrast.” The SJP Academy trains half of all new financial advisers in the UK. And with nearly £190 billion in client assets, SJP remains the nation’s largest wealth manager.
But behind the headlines, a different reality unfolds—one that feels more like a throwback to the 1980s direct sales forces than a firm ready to lead in a new era.
💼 The Hidden Cost of Success: One Adviser’s Experience
Let’s call him John—a pseudonym to protect confidentiality.
In his mid-40s, John found himself burnt out from corporate life: 80-hour weeks, endless travel, and no time for his family or his passion—golf. He wanted change.
Then came the pitch: become a financial adviser. “It’s a lifestyle career,” they told him. “You’re self-employed. You choose your hours. You can earn a good living and have time for the things that matter.” It was everything he wanted.
But it wasn’t true.
In his late 40s, like half of all new recruits, John joined the SJP Academy. The promise of flexibility and purpose-driven work drew him in. But after two years, the tone changed. SJP introduced “expectations” for new business—carefully worded to avoid calling them “targets” (and sidestep IR35 “disguised employment” rules), yet with real consequences if they weren’t met.
John was told he needed to bring in a substantial volume of new assets under management—generating significant initial fees—or risk losing his Appointed Representative (AR) status. His clients would be reassigned. No formal communication. No written policy. Just quiet threats.
He had built a reasonable client base, generating enough income to match the lifestyle he had worked hard to reclaim. But now, to meet the “expectations,” he would need to work six days a week, all year—more suited to a corporate rat race than financial planning.
When he asked whether protection income counted, the answer shifted: first “no,” then “yes”—but only up to 10% of the target. Nothing in writing.
What if expectations were raised next year? No reassurance.
What if he left? He’d receive nothing for his client book. No payment. No goodwill. SJP said he’d need to stay ten years (or five, with their permission) to sell—again, no promises in writing.
It was clear: he could sacrifice his time, his family life, and his integrity chasing their numbers. But if he didn’t meet their expectations, the rug could be pulled from under him. No recompense. No control.
This wasn’t self-employment. This was modern slavery.
To make matters worse, many of John’s clients were close friends, still locked in by SJP’s notorious early withdrawal penalties. If he walked away, they’d be left behind—either still paying ongoing adviser fees, but to a stranger, or stuck paying high product charges, orphaned, with no ongoing advice.
John was even offered a £200,000 loan at 3.5% above base to “buy in”—with vague hints that the debt might be forgiven if he lost his AR status. He didn’t take it. Others weren’t so lucky. Younger colleagues bought books valued at six times ongoing fees—plus goodwill—and now carry debts of £100,000 or more.
Chains and handcuffs.
Morally indefensible.
But entirely permissible under the model.
The culture is unmistakable: extract more. Work harder. Deliver—or disappear.
🏦 Behind the New Fee Model
Publicly, SJP is trying to clean house. They’ve simplified their famously opaque charging structure, removed early exit fees, and split advice, fund, and product charges.
On the surface, this is welcome. But consumer advocates rightly ask: why did it take so long? And how were exit penalties allowed to persist after Consumer Duty came into effect?
Some fees are rising. The ongoing pension charge has jumped from 0.92% to 1.66% in the first six years. While average total costs now hover around 1.9%—in line with competitors—many clients are still paying more than they realise.
🎭 Culture Shift or Cosmetic Rebrand?
FitzPatrick has made symbolic gestures: scrapping the O2 Arena conferences, ditching luxury sales perks, and introducing AI to monitor signs of client vulnerability.
But for advisers like John, nothing meaningful has changed. The model remains volume-driven. Borrowing to buy clients, taking on personal debt, chasing uncertain rewards—it’s a high-stakes game of musical chairs, with real lives and livelihoods on the line.
And it’s not just SJP. I fear that life in many other advice firms isn’t much different. Jumping ship may only land you in another fire.
Unless you choose something new.
🌱 A New Age of Autonomy
There is another way: the path of the holistic wealth planner.
This is not just the ethical route—it’s a sustainable business model. Today’s clients and advisers alike demand trust, transparency, and transformation—not the same tired sales culture, rebranded for the digital age.
At the Academy of Life Planning, we call this the GAME Plan:
Goals, Actions, Means, Execution — a cyclical framework that helps individuals plan their lives first, and money second.
It’s a model that champions autonomy over accumulation. Purpose over pressure. A model for the Aquarian age—one that supports the flourishing of both planner and client.
SJP may claim it’s drawing a line under its past. But if the internal culture still mirrors that past, no amount of PR will prepare it for the future.
If this resonates, join us at the Academy of Life Planning. We’re building a new world where planning means purpose—not just portfolios.
The highly questionable adviser loan structure
A LinkedIn exchange shines a powerful light on what appears to be a highly questionable adviser loan structure at St. James’s Place (SJP), and it aligns precisely with your ongoing campaign to expose exploitative practices masked as opportunity.
Here’s what can be made of the SJP Partner Loans No. 1 Ltd facility:
🔍 Structure Overview
- SJP Partner Loans No. 1 Ltd is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) used by SJP to issue loans to its advisers.
- Though legally separate, it’s funded and controlled by SJP — with directors linked back to the parent firm and registered at SJP’s HQ.
- Loan repayments are reportedly deducted from adviser earnings — a practice that mimics employment obligations despite advisers being self-employed.
📊 Key Financial Indicators
- £805 million in total adviser debt outstanding.
- £340m funded directly by SJP, £465m borrowed from banks, often with SJP guarantees.
- Interest charged to advisers: ~8.75% (Base + 3.5%).
- £53.1 million in distressed loans — more than double the figure from the prior year.
- A floating charge is in place — likely secured against adviser earnings.
⚠️ Why This Raises Red Flags
- Regulatory Ambiguity
By operating through an SPV, SJP may be circumventing FCA consumer credit protections, especially if advisers believe they are dealing with an independent lender rather than SJP itself. - Disguised Employment?
Repayment via salary deductions, performance-linked obligations, and lack of control suggest IR35-style issues — questioning whether these advisers are truly self-employed or trapped in ‘modern servitude.’ - Financial Exploitation
SJP earns a spread on loans it funds directly — meaning it profits from its own advisers’ indebtedness. This resembles leveraged control, not genuine support. - Wellbeing Crisis
A doubling of distressed loans implies that many advisers are financially strained — which could lead to burnout, depression, or worse. This is a looming mental health and professional conduct risk. - Asymmetry of Risk
While SJP earns predictable income, the adviser carries all the debt risk — including clawbacks and performance-based penalties. It’s exploitative asymmetry in all but name.
🧭 What Needs to Happen
- The FCA must investigate whether these captive loans meet the standards of Treating Customers Fairly and Consumer Duty.
- SJP should disclose:
- Full loan terms and risks,
- Details of the SPV structure,
- Profit margins earned on adviser debt.
- Advisers need protection, particularly new recruits who enter into complex financial obligations with limited commercial experience and weak bargaining power.
🔚 Final Thought
This isn’t just about bad business practice — it’s about a systematic failure of duty and decency.
As Dave Robinson aptly put it, this isn’t modern slavery in the legal sense — but it’s modern servitude, where freely given consent masks exploitative design.
The regulatory silence on this is deafening.
Join the M-Power Movement
Our Strategy:
- Vision, not critique.
- Surgical, not sweeping.
- Stories, not slogans.
- Accountability, not lost.
- Alternatives, not arguments.
What’s in it for you?
- Empowerment: Learn how to manage your money and grow your wealth with confidence.
- Entrepreneurship: Discover tools and support to turn your ideas into thriving businesses.
- Community: Connect with like-minded individuals and organisations dedicated to financial freedom for all.
How to Get Started:
- Join Our Community: Access free resources, workshops, and networking opportunities.
- Book a Call: Speak with an expert to explore how we can support your journey to financial independence.
- Spread the Word: Help us build a global movement by sharing this vision with your network.
Together, we can redefine what financial planning means, transforming it from a service of dependency into a tool of empowerment. The M-Power Movement is not just about creating wealth; it’s about creating a fairer society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.
Are you ready to take control of your financial future?
Academy of Life Planning 
One thought on “💥 Beneath the Surface: The SJP Model and the Case for an Alternative”