UK wealth manager St James’s Place has confirmed it will cut around 200 jobs over the next few months.
This comes after the firm carried out a company-wide review at the beginning of 2020, which included development of technology, ease of business, and investment approach changes.
The wealth giant confirmed that the jobs cut will not affect partners, advisers and their staff – as they are employees of the individual partner practices, which act as separate legal entities operating under the SJP umbrella.
‘Simplifying’
Andrew Croft, chief executive of SJP, said: “To remain leaders in our market, it’s vital we’re an agile and dynamic business – flexing to the changing needs of the partnership and clients.
“Whilst in coming years we’ll continue to grow the investment in our business, we need to make focused decisions on where and how we use this resource. Making sure we have the right people focused on the right things.
“Over the coming months, we’ll be simplifying where we can, removing duplication of work, and stopping those tasks we no longer require.
“And unfortunately, this also means a loss of around 200 roles from across the SJP business. Wherever possible in the process we’ll look to redeploy people to roles where their skills are aligned. And where this isn’t possible we’ll provide support, guidance, and people to talk to.
“This was a very tough decision for us to make, but one that’s needed for SJP to continue to be successful in the months, years, and decades ahead.”
Shareholder
International Adviser understands that the job cuts at SJP are not linked to complaints made by an activist shareholder late last year.
In October 2020, Primestone Capital wrote an open letter to the shareholders urging the board to overhaul its cost base/address the wealth manager’s “high-cost culture”, which has eaten into profitability and shareholder returns despite client assets surging.
The firm said that SJP had failed to deliver “meaningful shareholder value” due to the “suboptimal management” of its cost base which has led to a “bloated organisational structure” and “excessive” hiring and pay.
