St James's Place cuts cash held for customer redress after fees shake-up
The FTSE 100 firm clawed back £85million of the £426million it expected to pay out to compensate customers following complaints over historic ongoing advice charges.
It came as SJP revealed net client inflows almost doubled to around £3.8billion during the first half of the year.
The group is in the final phase of implementing its new fee structure next month after years of accusations its charges were were opaque and high.
On Thursday, the wealth group reiterated that it planned to launch its new new 'simple, comparable charging structure' to be in place from 26 August.
As part of the fee structure changes, the separate cost of the financial product, any advice provided and ongoing fund management costs will be split out.
The firm's exit charges have also been abolished for new customers.
St James's Place had already reduced its initial fee, which is the charge applied when a client first joins up to the firm.
This initial fee used to be 4.5 per cent of the wealth being handed over, plus an ongoing charge of 0.5 per cent.
From 26 August, a tiered initial fee approach will be adopted. Clients will pay 3 per cent on the first £250,000, 2 per cent on the next £250,000 and a 1 per cent fee on sums above £500,000.
The advice charge will be 0.8 per cent, which is higher than previously.
The fee saga came to a head in February when the London-listed firm said it had set aside £426million potentially to refund clients who were not provided with the services they should have been.
At the time, the business said it had received 'accelerating' levels of complaints from customers in the latter part of 2023, and that it is going to review customer records going back to 2018.
In an update on Thursday, St James's Place, said: 'During the period, following the FCA's new industry guidance around ongoing financial advice services, issued in February 2025, the Group revised the redress methodology.
'The Group have updated the assumptions to reflect experience from the project to date, which includes a larger representative cohort of clients.'
St James's Place clawed back £85million of the money it expected to pay out to compensate customers for historic ongoing advice charges.
The wealth manager said that it had now estimated it to be nearer £320million.
St James's Place shares rose more than 7 per cent on Thursday after the group unveiled bumper net inflows.
The wealth manager firm saw its net inflows double to £3.8billion in the first half of the year, buoyed by more demand for financial advice and renewed foreign interest in British markets.
The London-listed business launched a fresh £63.4million share buyback as its total managed assets jumped to £198.5billon by the end of the period, up from £190.2billion by the end of March.
The group recorded a 17 per cent increase in underlying post-tax cash to £240.4million.
Mark FitzPatrick, the company's chief executive, said: 'During the period our highly qualified, professional advisers helped over one million clients to navigate a complex macroeconomic environment, ensuring clients' financial plans remain on track for the future.
Beyond new business, the first half was a busy period of heavy lifting as we progressed in delivering our key programmes of work.
'We expect our new simple, comparable charging structure to be in place from 26 August 2025, and we look forward to achieving this important milestone.
'Meanwhile, our cost and efficiency programme is proceeding as expected and we are confident in delivering against our plan to take around £100 million out of our addressable cost base3 by 2027.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
6 minutes ago
- The Independent
Why has Kemi Badenoch fallen out with Liz Truss?
Dearie me, they're at it again. Former Tory leader Liz Truss and current Tory leader Kemi Badenoch are involved in another nasty spat, mainly about the infamous mini-Budget introduced by then Prime Minister Truss in September 2022. Badenoch has invoked that calamitous – and deeply Conservative – fiscal event in an otherwise routine attack on the government. Truss, ever ready to defend her record, because no one else will, has hit back and told Badenoch she's wrong and needs to do some more thinking, a particularly hurtful jibe when Badenoch thinks herself one of the brainier kids in the Westminster playground. Amusing and mildly diverting as it may be, this minor row also tells us some much bigger things about the Tory dilemma. What did Badenoch say? That Labour is even more incompetent than Truss was: 'For all their mocking of Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have not learnt the lessons of the mini-Budget and are making even bigger mistakes. They continue to borrow more and more, unable and unwilling to make the spending cuts needed to balance the books.' Is that new? Not really. Only a few weeks ago, the shadow chancellor, Mel Stride, evicted from ministerial office by Liz Truss when she formed her short-lived government, laid into the mini-Budget and apologised for it. Badenoch, meanwhile, has said she doesn't know whether Truss is still in the Conservative Party, and implied she doesn't really care either way. She's long let it be known she'd prefer Truss to just go quiet for a while. Badenoch has also been disobliging about the Sunak administration 'talking right but acting left'. But Sunak, like Johnson, May and Cameron, has, so far, preferred to ignore the present controversies and policy shifts, such as Badenoch's 'net-zero sceptic' stance. What's the Truss defence? The usual – her supposedly brilliant plan to turbocharge the British economy was thwarted by a terrible econo-bureaucratic blob and those, to the visionary Truss, idiots at the Bank of England. But increasingly she is having to adapt her line because of attacks from her own party (if she is indeed still in it), which means slagging off the administrations that came before her – Cameron, May, Johnson – and after, Sunak and now Badenoch's performance as leader of the opposition: 'It is disappointing that instead of serious thinking like this, Kemi Badenoch is instead repeating spurious narratives. I suspect she is doing this to divert from the real failures of 14 years of Conservative government in which her supporters are particularly implicated.' Er... weren't they both members of these dreadful governments? Yes. Truss continuously from 2012 to her ousting in 2022, and Badenoch from 2019 to 2024. Indeed, it was Truss who promoted Badenoch to the cabinet as international trade secretary. Neither showed much dissent, publicly or privately. Why are they scrapping? Neither wants to take responsibility for their own failures as a party leader, and that can inevitably lead to blame throwing for their disastrous showing at the election, and subsequently. But all politicians in all parties who find themselves thrashed by the voters are faced with this excruciating dilemma as they enter the wilderness of life in opposition: Do they denounce the record and policies of the government they were apparently happy to be a part of? Or do they defend their record instead? Do they agree with the voters' verdict or not? And if they want to, or have to, admit 'mistakes', are they going to be big or smaller ones? How to play it? By ear – there are no hard rules. Back in the 1970s, Margaret Thatcher, as leader of the opposition, did well out of renouncing most of what the Heath government had done because it ended in such chaos, and Thatcher was (like Badenoch today) a relatively junior cabinet member who could claim some innocence. In due course, because public opinion had shifted during the Blair years, David Cameron found that he'd have to criticise Thatcher herself, so he declared that 'there is such a thing as society' and told his fractious party to 'stop banging on about Europe'. Ed Miliband, after Labour's defeat in 2010, never seemed able to make up his mind about whether the Brown administration (in which he served) had failed, and, if so, how and why. Try as he might, Nick Clegg could never grovel sufficiently for what he did on tuition fees in the coalition government, and the Lib Dems were so punished at the 2015 general election that they were left with eight MPs compared to the 56 elected in 2010. At the moment, the Conservative-led government of 2010 to 2024 has few friends and many critics, the most vociferous being some of its leading lights. In this respect, the party is behaving more like Labour traditionally does after a defeat. Thus, after the 1974-79 Labour government fell from power, it was attacked by the Bennites on the Labour left for being too right-wing, and by the social democrats on the right for being too left-wing. Eventually, the long passage of time made arguments about pay policy, union power and unilateralism irrelevant. One day, when people have forgotten who Truss and Badenoch were, they may be ready to give the Tories a hearing. But, with Farage on their right flank, with no qualms about slagging off the last government, the Conservatives may not have the luxury of time to settle their differences and focus their attacks on him.
Telegraph
7 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Bank ‘must cut rates six times' over next year to boost ailing economy
Andrew Bailey must slash interest rates six times over the next year to bolster flagging growth, economists have warned. The Bank of England Governor and his colleagues on the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) are expected to cut borrowing costs from 4.25pc to 4pc this Thursday. But a growing cohort of economists predict Bank officials will be forced to go much further over the next 12 months. Six cuts would take the base rate to 2.75pc next year – the lowest level since late 2022. Peder Beck-Friis, an economist at Pimco, an investment company, said higher taxes, slower growth and the weakening jobs market will all push the Bank to cut rates further next year. 'While inflation has been surprisingly firm, we see good reasons to expect a slowdown. Regulatory price hikes, including in employment taxes, have pushed prices up, but wage growth is softening and the labour market is weakening,' he said. Companies are passing the £25bn increase in employers' National Insurance contributions on to customers, but 'once this tax shock fades, we expect inflation to ease, as seen in other developed countries'. 'We expect the Bank to accelerate rate cuts later this year, with the policy rate settling near 2.75pc next year,' he said. Michel Nies, from Citi, predicts rate cuts in August and November before an acceleration from December in the wake of 'very likely tax increases in the autumn Budget', taking the base rate to 2.75pc. He cites the weakening jobs market as the critical factor. The economy has lost 178,000 employees on payroll over the past year. Businesses in particular are taking a beating: 'The divergence between public and private sector employment growth continues to widen with the former still masking a sustained contraction in the latter,' Mr Nies said. Bruna Skarica, at Morgan Stanley, also expects cuts to 2.75pc because unemployment has risen to 4.7pc, the highest rate in four years. 'The build-up of slack in the labour market ... can only result in pay and price disinflation over time,' she said. 'The laws of economic gravity can be delayed, but not denied.' These economists remain in the minority, and even this week's anticipated rate cut will not be entirely uncontroversial. Policymakers are cutting interest rates even though inflation, at 3.6pc and rising, is well above its 2pc target. However, monetary policy takes as long as two years to feed through to consumer prices, meaning this week's rate decision will only fully pass through to inflation in mid-2027 - and will have little effect on the rise in living costs this year. Jack Meaning, a former Bank of England economist now at Barclays, forecasts a three-way split on the MPC. He anticipates that two policymakers will vote to hold rates, two for a double cut to 3.75pc, and the majority of five backing a move to 4pc. 'Despite these divergent views on both sides, we think the centre of the committee, and ultimately the decisive bloc, will continue on a gradual and careful quarterly rate cutting path, until it reaches 3.5pc in February 2026,' he said. The most recent three-way split came in May, when external MPC members Swati Dhingra and Alan Taylor voted for a half percentage point rate cut to 4pc.
Reuters
7 minutes ago
- Reuters
Credit Agricole raises Banco BPM stake to 20.1% with derivatives
MILAN, Aug 4 (Reuters) - French bank Credit Agricole ( opens new tab has acquired a further 0.3% of Banco BPM ( opens new tab via derivatives, raising its stake in Italy's third-biggest bank to 20.1%, a regulatory filing showed on Monday. The stake increase comes after Italy's UniCredit ( opens new tab last month dropped its takeover bid for BPM after running into government opposition and failing to persuade Credit Agricole to tender its stake in BPM under the offer. Credit Agricole, a long-standing commercial partner of BPM, emerged as its single biggest shareholder in early 2022, after an earlier aborted takeover plan by UniCredit. Credit Agricole doubled its stake in December after UniCredit bid for BPM. UniCredit CEO Andrea Orcel, a veteran investment banker, said he could not afford to let his bank be sidelined in a round of consolidation sweeping Italian banking. Echoing comments made when it first said it would raise its BPM stake just above 20%, Credit Agricole said on Monday it would not seek to acquire control of BPM and would keep its stake under a mandatory takeover threshold. The threshold in BPM's case stands at 25% and sources with knowledge of the matter told Reuters last week that Credit Agricole planned to eventually get to just below 25%. Credit Agricole also said it would not seek changes to BPM's board of directors. After securing European Central Bank authorisation to cross the 10% ownership threshold in BPM, which allowed it to increase its initial stake, Credit Agricole is now awaiting ECB approval to go above 20%. It would then be able to convert the derivative contracts into shares. It has said it then intends to book the BPM stake under an accounting method reserved for significant shareholders, which allows investors to more closely benefit from the performance of the company they have invested in.
