Whenever we put a story on the Money Marketing website with St James’s Place (SJP) in the headline, it seems to make its way very quickly to one of the most read on the site.
I’ve been tempted to write just ‘SJP’ as the headline, to see what happens. Will readers still flock to the story despite having no indication as to what the company has or hasn’t done?
Thank you to everyone who has helped and challenged me along the way. Balance is good
The same thing often occurs with articles on the Financial Conduct Authority.
Just look at our Month in Review section to get an idea. Both the advice giant and the regulator feature heavily, along with a couple of platform stories and some senior departures or people moves.
Over the years, I’ve also noticed how SJP and the FCA attract a fair bit of criticism from our online readers.
Of course, not everyone who reads the articles will share their thoughts. In fact, the page-views-to-comments ratio shows the majority don’t.
I just don’t buy the argument they can only do wrong in the eyes of advisers
But those who do comment on our site consistently seem to have a negative view of both organisations.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and we’re always keen to promote a healthy debate.
At times the criticism is justified and both SJP and the FCA need to be held to account if they do something wrong.
However, I can’t help but think maybe we would all benefit from a few more discussions about what they do right.
I’m sure that will get a few laughs. Maybe, even, ‘Well, that’s impossible.’
The regulator’s Consumer Duty already appears to be doing what it set out to do. SJP has responded because of it
I just don’t buy the argument they can only do wrong in the eyes of advisers. As I say, I reckon that’s not the case anyway; it’s probably more about perception. Or maybe those who hold a more positive view do not feel the need to share it. Or they don’t want to become embroiled in controversy.
Sometimes I get the impression SJP and the FCA can’t do right for doing wrong.
Yes, there are arguments both could have acted differently in the past, or faster, or could have engaged better. But now we are seeing action from both. Better late than never, I say.
The regulator’s Consumer Duty already appears to be doing what it set out to do. SJP has responded because of it. You can be the judge on whether it’s good or bad news for the advice profession.
Don’t laugh, but maybe we would all benefit from a few more discussions about what the two of them do right
The FCA doesn’t want consumers to have to contend with “unreasonable exit fees”. SJP gives the impression it will no longer be able to justify its early withdrawal charges, so they are on the way out.
Talking of which, so am I. This is my last editor’s view for MM.
It has been an absolute pleasure to be part of this fantastic brand. Thank you to everyone who has helped and challenged me along the way. Balance is good.
Katey Pigden is editor of Money Marketing. Contact her at: katey.pigden@moneymarketing.co.uk
This article featured in the November 2023 edition of MM.
If you would like to subscribe to the monthly magazine, please click here.
