Ah, St. James’s Place (SJP), the lovable dinosaur of the financial advice world, is at it again. In the sixth thrilling instalment of their Real Life Advice Report, they’ve discovered a shocking revelation: the 18–34-year-olds aren’t queuing up to buy their expensive advice. Only 18% of this age group think financial advice might benefit them in the future. Cue the pearl-clutching.
But why stop there? Almost a third (29%) of these pesky youngsters say their finances are too simple to need advice. Another 14% haven’t considered it because they’re “not aware of the benefits,” and 13% think it’s just “too early.” How dare they fail to see the brilliance of paying hefty fees for advice they don’t think they need?
The Real Real Life Advice
Let’s be honest: SJP isn’t crying about “barriers to access” because they’re philanthropically worried about the financial well-being of Gen Z and Millennials. No, they’re upset because the younger generation has clocked the game. In the information age, where financial knowledge is a Google search away, we simply don’t need a glossy-suited adviser to flog us a product portfolio.
SJP and its ilk are relics of the 1980s—those heady days when the internet was but a glint in Tim Berners-Lee’s eye, and financial advisers held the keys to the kingdom of products that only they understood. Back then, you could bamboozle people into signing up for anything with a shiny brochure and a handshake. But today’s digitally savvy crowd? Not so much.
The Rise of the Self-Directed Investor
Younger generations aren’t lazy, uninformed, or naïve. They’re just smart shoppers. With platforms like Vanguard, Hargreaves Lansdown, and Nutmeg offering low-cost, diversified investment options that deliver market returns, what’s the appeal of paying an SJP adviser to do… well, exactly that, but with a big, fat fee attached?
When Mark FitzPatrick, SJP’s CEO, laments that “misplaced perceptions and outdated views” are the problem, one has to chuckle. No, Mark, the problem isn’t that people misunderstand your value proposition—it’s that they understand it all too well.
Dear SJP: The Market Doesn’t Need to Change. You Do.
The tone-deafness of this whole affair is almost impressive. SJP’s “solution” to young people not wanting financial advice? Train more advisers, make advice more accessible, and “raise awareness.” In other words: “We’ll just keep shouting louder until you finally get how amazing we are.”
But here’s the thing: it’s not about the industry adapting to teach Millennials and Gen Z why they need advice. It’s about the industry adapting to a reality where they don’t. The commoditisation of financial products means the old-school, high-fee model is about as relevant as a fax machine.
Younger generations value transparency, efficiency, and autonomy. They grew up with algorithms that do in seconds what used to take humans hours. The idea of delegating their financial future to a salesperson tied to expensive legacy products feels not just unnecessary but actively backward.
The Great Wealth Transfer: SJP’s Last Hope?
Of course, there’s a glimmer of hope for SJP in the form of the so-called “great wealth transfer.” As trillions are passed down from Baby Boomers to their kids and grandkids, SJP is banking on a payday. But here’s a reality check: why would the heirs of that wealth turn to SJP when they’ve already learned to DIY their investments?
And let’s not ignore the not-so-subtle lobbying SJP does to keep its outdated business model afloat. From regulators to the Treasury, they’re out there greasing the wheels to ensure the system stays tilted in their favour. But as they say, Pandora’s box is open, and it’s not closing anytime soon.
Reinvent or Fade Away
So here’s some free advice for SJP—no fee required: reinvent your business model. Ditch the outdated paradigm of high-cost advice tied to clunky products, and embrace the future of low-cost, flexible, technology-driven solutions.
Because, as much as you might wish otherwise, the younger generation isn’t the problem. The problem is that you’re still stuck in the past.
Opinion: What Needs To Change?
SJP should be deeply concerned about this Schroders study—not because it’s news to anyone (it isn’t), but because it highlights just how unprepared old-school financial advisers are for the tidal wave of change they’re facing. Here’s why:
1. The Great Wealth Transfer Won’t Wait for You
With 62% of advisers worried about losing assets during the great wealth transfer, you’d think they’d be racing to appeal to younger generations. But nope—53% report their client base is getting older, and 68% primarily serve clients aged 51–64. At this rate, they’ll be marketing retirement cruises while their younger prospects are buying fractional NFTs or whatever’s next.
2. Hello, Is Anyone Marketing to Gen Z?
Only 20% of advisers are tailoring their sales and marketing to younger investors. The other 80% seem to think generic brochures and “trust us, we’re experts” will somehow resonate with a generation that gets financial advice from TikTok influencers and robo-advisers.
3. Ignoring Women: A Missed Opportunity (and a Big One)
With 60% of UK wealth projected to be held by women by next year, you’d assume advisers would have strategies to retain and attract this demographic. But only 12% of them do. The rest are apparently banking on outdated stereotypes like “women don’t care about finance,” while widows and divorcees move their wealth elsewhere faster than you can say, “stubborn gender bias.”
4. AI Is Coming, Whether You Like It or Not
While advisers debate whether AI will “disrupt” their world (spoiler: it already has), only 21% have implemented it. The rest are dithering, hoping their spreadsheets will remain relevant while younger clients expect instant, tailored insights at the push of a button.
Why This Should Terrify SJP
SJP has a business model tied to high-cost advice and legacy clients—the very demographic at risk of disappearing. If they don’t adapt quickly, they’ll be stuck chasing younger generations who are already doing just fine managing their money without them.
And let’s not forget: widows and Gen Zers aren’t the problem. They’re simply voting with their wallets against outdated, fee-heavy financial advice that feels like a relic of the past. If SJP wants to survive, they’d better stop navel-gazing and start innovating. Fast.
Comments