SJP's low-cost funds: how good are they?
- Robin Powell
- Oct 9
- 7 min read
Updated: Oct 10
SJP’s low-cost funds promise to make investing with St James’s Place more affordable. But beneath the new branding lie familiar problems — complex charges, tactical tinkering, and questions over value. Here’s what clients should know before buying in.
Two years after I broke the news that St James’s Place was preparing to launch a range of low-cost index funds, the UK’s biggest wealth manager has finally delivered. But has it really changed its spots — or just polished them?
For years, the firm has been synonymous with high fees, complex charging structures and poor transparency. Even as passive investing swept the market, SJP held firm to its active, high-cost model, arguing that its clients valued advice and service above headline price. Now, after years of pressure from regulators and critics, it has unveiled a new suite of index funds — a move it calls proof of its evolution.
On the surface, this looks like progress. The new funds are simpler and cheaper than the old model portfolios. Yet beneath the marketing gloss, the same underlying issues persist. SJP’s charging structure remains layered and opaque: advice, platform, and fund fees all add up. When you total those costs, the firm is still far from the cheapest option on the market.
As James Daley of Fairer Finance puts it, “This is a welcome development, but it doesn’t mean St James’s Place has suddenly become good value. Investors still need to understand what they’re paying and what they’re getting for it.”
The other question concerns how these funds will be managed. Though labelled “index”, they won’t be purely passive. SJP plans to use dynamic asset allocation — adjusting exposures in response to market conditions. The academic evidence here is clear: such tactical shifts rarely add value and often detract from long-term returns.
So yes, SJP’s new fund range is a step in the right direction. But whether it represents a genuine transformation or a strategic rebrand remains to be seen.
"Customers have been paying too much for their services for too long. Let's hope this is the beginning of a more transparent era for SJP, which focuses on ensuring its customers are receiving fair value." — James Daley, Fairer Finance
Two questions, two different answers
This article answers two distinct questions. It's crucial to know which applies to you.
If you're considering becoming an SJP client: Should you sign up? That depends on what you're looking for and how costs compare to alternatives. Read the next section.
If you're already an SJP client: Should you stay, switch funds, or leave? That's more complex and depends largely on your portfolio size and the quality of advice you're receiving. Read sections three onwards.
Let's address each in turn.
For prospective clients — understanding the competitive landscape
St James’s Place sits in a very different market today from the one it dominated even a decade ago. Back then, its combination of brand power, adviser network and bundled service model allowed it to justify higher charges. But the world has moved on. Low-cost investment platforms and evidence-based financial planning firms now offer what many investors regard as a superior alternative — clearer fees, simpler structures and stronger alignment with client interests.
The question for prospective clients is not whether SJP’s new funds are cheaper than before; they are. The real question is how they compare with the best options now available. When you add together advice, platform and fund costs, the total still looks steep next to leading independent firms and digital platforms offering diversified global portfolios at a fraction of the price.
Cost aside, complexity remains a hurdle. SJP’s charging system continues to involve multiple layers and withdrawal penalties, which make comparisons difficult. Transparency has improved, but it still falls short of the clarity that investors increasingly expect. Many competitors now provide one-page fee summaries showing every pound a client pays; SJP’s literature still requires close reading and, often, a calculator.
Where SJP retains an advantage is in brand familiarity and the perceived reassurance of face-to-face advice. For some investors, that comfort matters more than cost. But investors should ask themselves whether paying a premium for that reassurance truly delivers better outcomes. Over time, the evidence suggests that low-cost, globally diversified, passively managed portfolios — paired with fiduciary, planning-led advice — have delivered superior results for the average investor.
In short, SJP’s new fund range may close the perception gap with its rivals, but the competitive gap remains wide. Those seeking long-term value still have better options elsewhere.
“SJP’s new fund range may close the perception gap with its rivals, but the competitive gap remains wide.”
For existing clients — what this means for you
For existing SJP clients, the launch of a new range of index funds is being presented as evidence that the firm is modernising. But it’s important to distinguish between genuine reform and cosmetic change. Lower-cost options are welcome, yet they don’t automatically translate into lower total charges for you. The all-in cost of investing with SJP — including advice, platform, and fund layers — remains higher than many equivalent services on the open market.
If you’re already invested, this development may raise expectations that your costs will fall or that performance will improve. In reality, neither outcome is guaranteed. The new “passive” portfolios still rely on dynamic asset allocation, which means SJP’s investment committee will make tactical shifts based on market views. The evidence from independent research is consistent: market timing and tactical allocation rarely enhance long-term returns and can increase risk and turnover costs instead.
That doesn’t mean existing clients should rush to leave. But it does mean you should review your position with open eyes. Ask for a full breakdown of every charge you pay and clarify whether your current portfolio will transition into the new fund range or remain in its existing structure. You’re entitled to know exactly how your money is being managed and what value you receive in return.
For clients who joined SJP years ago, these changes can feel confusing — or even frustrating. After all, many were led to believe their portfolios were already being run in their best interests. This new shift towards indexing is, implicitly, an admission that lower-cost, evidence-based investing works. But if you’re now being charged high ongoing fees for what amounts to passive exposure wrapped in a complex structure, you deserve transparency and the freedom to make an informed choice.
Ultimately, this is a moment for reflection, not panic. SJP has moved in the right direction, but it hasn’t yet joined the ranks of genuinely low-cost, client-first providers. Existing investors should treat this as a cue to reassess whether loyalty is still being rewarded — or simply being relied upon.
So where does all this leave investors? Whether you’re an existing client weighing your next move or someone considering joining SJP for the first time, the same questions apply — are you getting genuine value, and does the evidence back the approach you’re being sold?
The bottom line
St James’s Place deserves some credit for listening to its critics and moving, however cautiously, towards lower-cost investing. For a firm that built its empire on active management, this is a notable shift. But viewed through the lens of evidence, transparency and value for money, SJP remains behind the curve.
Index funds are only as good as the structure surrounding them. A simple global tracker held through a single transparent platform can cost well under 0.3% a year. By contrast, once SJP’s layered advice, platform and fund fees are added together, the total typically comes in around 1.3–1.9% a year — still significantly higher than clients pay elsewhere.
Once SJP’s layered advice, platform and fund fees are added together, the total typically comes in around 1.3–1.9% a year — still significantly higher than clients pay elsewhere.
The new funds help at the margins, but they don’t fix the fundamental problem: complexity remains built into the business model, and the decision to use dynamic asset allocation underlines that point. Evidence from Morningstar, Vanguard and academic studies shows that tactical shifts between asset classes usually reduce returns and increase risk. Investors are generally better served by a disciplined, static allocation aligned with their goals, not one adjusted in reaction to market noise.
For those already in SJP portfolios, the new fund range is an opportunity to ask harder questions: What is my total annual cost, including all layers? How much am I paying for advice versus investment management? Is my portfolio’s asset allocation based on evidence or judgement? For those considering joining, it’s a reminder that lower-cost investing is already available elsewhere — cleaner, simpler and genuinely passive.
SJP has taken a step in the right direction, but it remains a cautious, self-interested step rather than a transformation. The firm’s reputation for service and stability still appeals to many. Yet for investors seeking clarity, control and efficiency, better options are hiding in plain sight: transparent platforms, fiduciary planners and straightforward global index funds that quietly deliver what active promises but rarely achieves. The evidence points one way: simplicity, not complexity, wins over time.
A note on advice: I'm a journalist, not a financial adviser. This article provides information and analysis to help you ask better questions and make more informed decisions. But everyone's circumstances differ. If you're uncertain about the right path forward for your specific situation, consult a qualified, independent financial adviser who can review your complete financial picture and provide personalised recommendations.
Looking for an independent adviser? TEBI's Find an Adviser service connects you with evidence-based financial planners who understand the academic research on investing and prioritise client outcomes over product sales. These advisers use passive strategies, understand the limitations of active management, and focus on the financial planning that actually adds value. Complete our questionnaire here; it will only take a few minutes.
RECENTLY ON TEBI
TEBI ON YOUTUBE
Have you visited the TEBI YouTube channel lately? There’s already a wide selection of high-quality videos on there. Why not subscribe and be one of the first to see our latest content? You'll also find our videos on Instagram and TikTok.