Other Citywire websites
Stay connected:

View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/article/a662110

SJP assets soar to £34.8bn as adviser numbers climb

by Alex Steger on Feb 28, 2013 at 07:45

SJP assets soar to £34.8bn as adviser numbers climb

St James’s Place (SJP) saw assets under management grow to £34.8 billion in 2012, a 22% increase from the start of the year, as adviser numbers swelled to 1,788.

The restricted network was boosted by £5.9 billion of new investment and pension business, 13% up on 2011, which combined with retention of existing client funds resulted in net inflows of £3.4 billion.

New business profit was up for the year at £276.8 million, a 13% increase from £246 million in 2011, although operating profit dipped slightly, 1.5%, from £371.5 million in 2011 to £365.9 million for 2012.

It again raised its dividend by 33% from 2011, having raised it by the same amount for the last two years.

Adviser numbers grew to 1,788, an 8% increase, and SJP said it had over 2,000 diploma qualified advisers and support staff.

Profit before shareholder tax was £134.6 million, up 23% on the previous year’s £109.7 million.

While SJP’s life and unit business both posted an increase in profits, £111.7 million up from £89.1 million, and £33.5 million up from £27.8 million, its distribution business profits fell to £5.3 million, compared to £6.1 million in 2011.

SJP’s results for 2012 reveal that it paid £9 million in Financial Services Authority (FSA) fees and Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) bills.

SJP chief executive David Bellamy (pictured) said: ‘Whilst we recognise that there is still economic uncertainty, everything we understand about our marketplace tells us that there has never been a greater need for high quality advice delivered by a trusted adviser, backed by a well-respected company.’

‘We have good momentum across all aspects of the business and are therefore confident in our ability to continue our growth in line with our medium term objectives in 2013 and beyond.’

49 comments so far. Why not have your say?

David McElhoney

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:08

Dolores Chimichanga

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:15

churn and clients burn, churn and clients burn.......but SJP are doing fine.

report this

Paul Barnard

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:16

"SJP chief executive David Bellamy (pictured) said: ‘Whilst we recognise that there is still economic uncertainty, everything we understand about our marketplace tells us that there has never been a greater need for high quality advice delivered by a trusted adviser, backed by a well-respected company.’"

I think we would all agree with that - I think we may have a difference of opinion as to who that might be though.

report this

Dominic Thomas via mobile

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:16

A case of if you can't beat em join em?

report this


Feb 28, 2013 at 08:22

The success of SJP demonstrates to me what clients value more than anything and that's relationships. The SJP products and fund choice are secondary to the clients.

Maybe we all need to ask our clients what they value most rather than assuming.

report this

Graeme Ferguson

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:28

I wonder if the increase is due to advisers retiring and moving to SJP for an attractive retirement payment for assets.... Which is maybe more about RDR than good performance?

report this


Feb 28, 2013 at 08:29

".................. everything we understand about our marketplace tells us that there has never been a greater need for high quality advice delivered by a trusted adviser,..............."

That at least is true.

Considering the source of the quote, the word 'oxymoron' comes to mind.

report this

The Rumpo Kid

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:32

It's official; the Upmarket Salesforce is dead, long live the Restricted Network!

report this

Bindair Dundat 2

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:39

It’s fairly straight forward – know your target market both end client and adviser client and market accordingly. EVHE is spot on, unless you ask your clients what it is that they value how do you put a compelling proposition together?

The rise in adviser numbers into SJP was always going to happen – A number of small advisers who have long standing trusting relationships with a good number of clients built over the years by selling them stuff do not have the will or the skill other than to pass L4 diploma, have no idea how to market anything, and have known for years deep down that they have been overpaid for what they do and still want to flog a bond or two.

It is the regulator that has failed here by allowing to all intents a vertically integrated business to bundle and blur what the client pays. So carry on bond floggers take your 3% plus ½% - maybe you are not smart enough to see the client gets charged 4.5% and then some – This equates to a network service charge for all the fancy marketing spin and support of 33% - that’s pretty steep. Ah, that will be why it is an incredibly successful business model that makes a shed load of money for the shareholders – Shareholders win, advisers win and I am now struggling to see if there is any other stakeholder in the equation that might also win!

report this

Sam De Zoysa

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:41


True enough. Maybe we should spend less time on here and more time strengthening our existing relationships and making new ones. That way some of their clients might discover that they can have their cake and eat it?

£5.3m though? That's a fair amount of scratch for a distribution biz!

report this


Feb 28, 2013 at 08:42

Kev here

@ Graeme - you are probably right and also consider the advisers who worked for a Bank - many branch advisers lost there positions - far easier to become another Direct Marketer and rebroke all the old stuff

Good old RDR lol

report this

Joseph via mobile

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:50

Bind air dun 2

You sum it up spot on

Yes the numbers are big but anyone with intelligence knows how this is achieved, come on regulators wake up, make it level playing field and give public the service we all pay you to do.

report this

Richard R

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:52

A few weeks ago an SJP sales chap said to a client of mine that SJP were the only company to guarantee their advice.

With a business model like that how can they possibly fail?

(oh, and yes, an investment bond was to be churned on the grounds that the existing funds were high risk)

Trusted adviser? My *rse

report this

alan from perth

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:54

I think that the big test will be in 2013 when everything settles down and the allegedly high commissions, last minute churning and migration stops. Then we will see the true picture from many of the companies. You wont be able to tear off the last page of the quote showing 7% plus 0.5fbrc (allegedly!!!!)

report this

Captain Hindsight

Feb 28, 2013 at 08:54

I realy must admire the wonderful clothes you are wearing....Emperor.....sigh....

report this


Feb 28, 2013 at 09:13

When the wheels come off this bus (as they will), the regulator will not be able to claim that it did not know, or was not told, how dodgy these sophists are.

But will heads roll? I doubt it ........

report this

Mad Eyes

Feb 28, 2013 at 09:21

good news someone making money in this industry. The networks have really helped the industry for years havent they!? Most couldnt run a pi## up in a brewery and the owners/directors just move on to a new job leaving the poor ifa to transfer clients yet again. Who pays for all of this carnage?

report this

Its All Good

Feb 28, 2013 at 09:34

Strange I thought as an IFA my advice was guaranteed like ST James Place, surely if I give regulated advice and the client suffers detriment,

they complain,

They Complain, FOS investigates,

If upheld PI Insurance Pays out,

If PI dont pay out, I do or the Claim sends me into administration,

Go into Administration FSCS Pick up the pieces,

I know thats a bit cynical but this was the safety net put into place to ensure that clients are not disadvantaged so surely as an IFA, I can state that my Advice is guaranteed and that guarantee is enforced by statute...

but how can SJP's guarantee which comes from them ...

Surely in post Lehman days that statement should be questionned?

report this


Feb 28, 2013 at 09:34


And exactly how long have you been working for SJP's marketing or bond-flogging department?

report this

Bobby 21

Feb 28, 2013 at 09:35

I would'nt join them but i do admire them. Their marketing of the SJP product is world class. Their partnerships are awesome Telegraph Wealth Management Service (small print service provided by SJP). Their Seminars are very well targeted and venues are even more impressive (Blenheim Palace, Mercedez Benz World, Daily Telgraph Head office) . They really know their market and have penetrated amazingly. Products/Cost deffinitely come second.

report this

Mad Eyes

Feb 28, 2013 at 09:47

@its all good.

Check with your compliance or service provider but only guarantee what you can afford to lose my friend. The world is changing

Many companies offer guarantees but charge extra for it. Such as Metlife etc. It cannot be free but if investors/ advisers like that clearly there must be a good market for it? I know a few broker consultants who are making big money flogging guarantees at the moment

report this


Feb 28, 2013 at 09:49

Why is New Model Adviser wasting column inches on distinctly Old Model Salesforces ?

report this

SJP_R_US via mobile

Feb 28, 2013 at 09:51

@ FinancialPlanner2012

I can get you an interview if you want to do your job properly and live up to ur username and do an honest days work for the first time in your life.

report this


Feb 28, 2013 at 09:57

As more and more IFA's disapear from our industry firms like SJP will continue to flourish.

To read many comments on here you would imagine the average IFA is a charity worker, not in the job for the money! And churning tends to be pretty widespread amongst the IFA community as it is wherever money is involved.

This industry is not new, and through all the regulatory regimes, all the changes that have been imposed on the industry those who have kept the basic premise of the job to the forefront of their plans have and will continue to flourish.

'It is a selling job' and 'people buy from people',

Good luck to those at SJP and to anyone else making a living from the industry, but please drop much of the holier than thou rubbish.

report this

Sam De Zoysa

Feb 28, 2013 at 09:58

@SJP_R_US @ FinancialPlanner2012

Ladies please!

report this

Gordon Hay

Feb 28, 2013 at 10:02

Any IFA who doesn't admire SJP, and HL's, marketing prowess is blinkered. They can both teach us a lesson on marketing and what clients want.

They are marketing machines selling largely high margin products in the same form as DFS, and leveraging their "brand" in the manner of Katie Price and Beckham.

However, I fear neither of them in a head to head contest, we can knock them both out of the park with the array of skills, knowledge and investment solutions which are often cheaper and better value than so called "discount brokers"and much cheaper than SJP (just see their Neil Woodford High Income fund figures for proof of that !).

The problem is, they will always get to more "customers" than your average local IFA will because iof their scale (bit like the old banks) , however it still leaves plenty of long term clients who want a proper transparent relationship for us IFAs to prosper.

Embrace their marketing approach, it is superb,and learn from it but don't fear them

report this

Yaya Toure's wallet

Feb 28, 2013 at 10:12

Going back to the article however....

"The restricted network was boosted by £5.9 billion of new investment and pension business, 13% up on 2011, which combined with retention of existing client funds resulted in net inflows of £3.4 billion."

Surely this means that they 'bought' in £5.9Bn but lost £2.5Bn. Not the best long term business model given how much they appear to pay when buying in!

report this

Richard Ellis

Feb 28, 2013 at 10:14

What Gordon said

report this

Bindair Dundat 2

Feb 28, 2013 at 10:24

@ Gordon

My ealrier comments reflect exactly this same sentiment - we should form a club!

report this

Richard SALTER

Feb 28, 2013 at 10:31

This outfit have just stitched up one of my clients with no less than a six year early exit penalty pension contract. This mechanism however enables them to masquerade as having no initial set up charge - though it does still allow them to load a further 0.25% pa advice fee - on top of the usual plan fees and fund charges - and pay the 'adviser' concerned almost £3,000 upfront (five per cent equivalent). Charges aside the 'advice' required the clients assets to improve by 1.9% per annum as this is the RIY over his existing arrangements whose surrender included MVA charges, the loss of a WP contract awarding 4% annual bonuses and other options all more sure than the 'promise' that they (SJP) should outperform !!!! I have never seen such costly advice - and advice anchored and predicated on potential outperformance - which i thought our regualator frowns upon.

It is absolutely shocking that charges can be so high and yet SJP can claim they will deliver sufficent outperformance to merit paying them. It is the SJP marketing machine, glossy brochures and hard sell which vulnerable clients keep on swallowing - and the FSA continues to do nothing about. Restricted advice can be highly dangerous advice too and someone has to pay for all these profits!! I also fear less strong advisers hiding under the skirts of SJP when RDR might have hoped to clear them out of the profession completely.

report this


Feb 28, 2013 at 10:32

I'm an IFA but also a compliance adviser. I mention this not because I like talking about myself, but because its relevant to my comment. It means that like the rest of you, I am working in the real world of being an adviser. It also means I see the work of many other IFAs.

I do not work for SJP.

I know a client who uses an IFA for his large pension fund and SJP for his smaller personal investment portfolio.

He adores SJP. He, says (but I have not verified) that they have performed year in, year out and the service is exellent. They delight him. He has confidence in them.

Many IFAs outsource to a DFM paying up to 1% (inc VAT) to the DFM, often 0.75% to the adviser, the DFMs usually buy funds more than direct stocks and so the underlying portfolio TER is often another 1%. So that's 2.75%, before any wrapper charges. If wrapped in bond, that could easily take it over 3% pa pa.

I got 10 DFMs (mostly the big boys, but with a few niche players for balance) to complete DD and the average total cost before wrapper and adviser charges were just under 2% pa, so its a pretty reliable quote.

Even as recent as two years ago I was seeing files from firms who were partnered with a DFM, where there suitability letters only stated the DFM management fee, completely ignoring the TER of the underlying investments. Often, the IFA didn't even know about it - or should I say hadn't thought it through, as they could see that there were collectives in the portfolios and must have realised that Invesco Perpetual et al were not running for funds for free, even if the DFM does buy them on "institutional" terms...

Platform-based IFA model portfolios I have seen are typically 2.5% pa when all the costs are totted up as above.

And we all know that fund TERs do not necessarily reflect all costs, so the absolute costs is likely to be even higher.

My point?

Are SJP any more expensive than this?

Taking a balanced view and ignoring my own best interests (which lay in the IFA arena) I can't see why my sector of the industry looks down its nose at SJP. It seems like they have reason to be proud of their success.

Now, I'm sure some will hit me stories of terrible tradegies where SJP "completely ripped off my client..." and maybe some are true, but I monitor IFAs for a living and I know that issue cuts both ways

report this

Sam De Zoysa

Feb 28, 2013 at 10:33

@Bindair Dundat 2

Bit difficult when you're both anonymous! Maybe you could wear a red carnation in your lapel?

report this

James Marchant

Feb 28, 2013 at 11:01

I'm with Gordon as well, both SJP and HL market themselves superbly and IFAs would do well to pay attention to that because we can learn from these people.

Having said that though it isn't difficult for a savvy IFA to take business from either. I'm just about to take on an SJP client and haven't had to 'dis' SJP charges in doing so, the client has decided that they want a strategic financial planning relationship not a glossy product flogging service!

Similarily with HL. The number of HL investors I have met who believe that they are getting 'advice' rather than information from HL is staggering. When you explain this along with how HL make their money, its really not difficult to engage with these clients.

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Feb 28, 2013 at 11:12

The adviser world is split between those who have a conscience and put their clients first and those who put their own interests ahead.

If you look at the costs levied by the former group you will find a massive difference in initial and ongoing fees compared to the latter.

A TER of over 2%, let aloe 3% is to me something to avoid and I like to get to between 1.5% & 1.75% if possible.

Okay, I may never be rich, but at least my conscience is clear.

report this

RDR Ready and raring to go

Feb 28, 2013 at 12:41

Totally agree with COBS9 and Jonathon Kirby a TER of 2-3% is a massive chunk out of single digit investment returns. SJP arent a bad lot and if you are doing a good job why worry about them they are not a bit worried about you.

report this

Dandy lion

Feb 28, 2013 at 13:23

I have several comments regardnig this:

1/ I was recently told by a SJP manager (who has been trying to recruit me for years) that SJP had "got around" RDR rules and were still paying commision and clients would continue to have 100% initial allocation with exit penalties. One would think the FSA would spoty this and change it woudlnt you? He said i would be expected to transfer my clients to SJP and they would be ok with this as they would get 100% allocation. He has no real concerns with suitability just volume.

2/ I would have thought the reason why they are "expanding" their funds under management to this extent, is that new joiners will be running around like blue ar5e flys getting as much across to SJP as they can taking 3% commision and on-going fund based. They also told me that if i joined i would get 7 x renewal when i retired. This provides an incentive them to build up the SJP portfolios, to my mind, in an unethical way.

3/ yes SJP do have flashy offices and headed paper and it amazes me that clients dont see through all this BS and realise they are being heavily charged for it all.

4/ has the FSA looked into this charging structure and told them it is RDR compliant? Surely this promotes exacty the behaviours they are trying to get rid of?

5/ Has Citywire investigated it and asked searcing questions (ie proper journalims) instead of providing flattering headlines?

report this

alan from perth

Feb 28, 2013 at 13:37

Re last comment from Mr LIon!!!! -well put and just what i have been saying-lets see if their assets go up next year by the same volume as its no easy to get away with 7% (allegedly)

Whilst many ifas were no better and hopefully they have gone its sad to see that this mob (if you are correct) are still at it.

Totally agree that the FSa should come down on them like a ton of bricks and put a stop to it instead of devoting hours and hours of paperwork into capacity for loss etc ete etc. Yes this is also very important but meanwhile the Rome buns as Nero plays with his fiddle!!!

report this

Karl Thorpe

Feb 28, 2013 at 13:40

Let's be fair, most IFAs are envious of the marketing etc that SJP do and their brand recognition. Regardless of the job their advisers do, they are the market leaders when it comes to marketing.

Those in the industry know full well a lot of this is due to RDR and things will level out over the next 24 months. Especially when we consider single digit returns are the most likely going forward, meaning more emphasis on TERs.

It will be interesting to see if they sustain this, or become another 'Dunbar'.

I am also mindful of the quote from the 'Usual Suspects' - "The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was to convince the world he didn't exist."

Not that I'm calling SJP the Devil!!!!!!!!! Or am I????

report this

Graeme Ferguson

Feb 28, 2013 at 13:43

@ Dandy Lion

True but very sad.

Why the FSA is not all over this behaviour is beyond me...

Maybe the well oiled marketing and sales firms are also well oiled in the lobbying business.... lets check to see how closely linked some big firms are to the FSA.... anybody want to check who knows who in these organisations???

report this


Feb 28, 2013 at 14:30

I get very very tired of SJP bashing, to those moaning about SJP advising your clients, if the client relationship was there they wouldn't see anyone else would they? so how can you call them your clients and secondly most of the huge mis-selling scandals of the last 20 odd years have been mostly IFA related, so those that live in glass houses shouldn’t really be throwing stones..... and as for underperforming funds, we all use the same fund managers, so how can it be that an IFA recommended fund such as Invesco High Income fund is better than the same fund via SJP, a 6 year tie in is perhaps much more palatable to a client than losing 5% upfront! After all your all took commissions pre 31st Dec from where?... oh yes initial fees! You now chnarge fees so just get on with it. Its a free country and its the clients choice who and how they wish to work with

report this

Jonathan Kirby

Feb 28, 2013 at 14:45

Jenno = brainwashed

report this

Yaya Toure's wallet

Feb 28, 2013 at 15:09

Jenno appears not to appreciate the difference with buying the fund directly or indirectly. I hope you are not an adviser as you show a distinct lack of knowledge and understanding!

TER does not necessarily = TER just because the fund manager is the same! Therefore INVESCO Perpetual High Income fund when bought on a platform using 'clean units' is mightily cheaper than via a bond - be that with SJP or indeed some others too. Clearly there would be a wrap charge - 0.25% - 0.35% nowadays - if you think it is more you better update your research! Then there is also the ongoing adviser fee too - lets say 0.75%. Even so the total cost of said fund on a wrap with wrap and adviser ongoing charges will be less than 2.0% pa and with no ongoing time committment or exit charges to fund or product or provider!

As for 5% initial - perhaps if you bought directly from INVESCO Pre RDR, but few IFA's did as via a wrap it would be purchased for 0% and adviser fee would come from wrap and that would usually be no more than 3% and often very much less.

All in all SJP are more expensive and Restricted too!

Pay more receive less...

report this

Keith Cobby

Feb 28, 2013 at 15:39

Looking at SJPs mailing letter and brochures it is obvious to me that the word commission has simply been replaced with the words 'adviser charging'. Any firm that offers their own funds (as well as others) is clearly a direct selling operation - nothing wrong with that. I cannot see that much progress has been made since polarisation The provision of advice must be completely separated from product sales. Until this happens SJP will carry on and good luck to them.

report this

Richard SALTER

Feb 28, 2013 at 17:10

Jenno - you show a distinct, and worrying, lack of understanding about mirror funds. These charge more for the same apparent fund but in many instances run with a time delay. As such they do not get the opportunity of market timing at the best rates the original fund managers are able to strike. Many in fact never even see the light of the leading (award winning probably) fund manager but are closet trackers.

The combination of higher costs and slower turnaround in trades is reflected in weaker fund returns.

Then there is the matter of 5% upfront advice cost paid for by a six year lock-in. All well and good you say but :- a) I beleive such high costs are morally repellent and b) SJP also charge an extra 0.25% per annum - effective double charging then?

They are sharp suited charlatans who care more for their own profits than giving best advice. Wolves dressed up in sheeps (not lambs) clothing. This is where regulators should be stepping in to prevent sharp practice - but as SJP know - until such time as the regulator does step in it is "open season". More fool the public to be led by such donkeys as our regulators and policticians - who often end up on the high paid executives of such rip off busineses.

report this

Julian Stevens

Mar 01, 2013 at 09:27

The general gist of many of the comments here seems to be that SJP operates a slick and superficially impressive marketing machine (all fur coat and no knickers as one wag put it). It also, apparently, provides good ongoing service that convinces clients they're being well looked after.

On the other hand, the standards of advice provided by its partners is frequently questionable (as a number of commentators have posted), its charges/product costs are high and, from my own research, the performance of many of its funds looks pretty naff.

What it all adds up to, I surmise, is a triumph of style over substance ~ very successful, yes, but not very good in terms of quality.

report this

Graeme Ferguson

Mar 01, 2013 at 09:42

pretty spot on their Julian

Though I think we could all learn a few things from SJP..... but most of us don't have the resources both in terms of capital and employing a marketing director!!

I don't think we would look at them for a lesson on ethics... unless I am wrong?

As one comment said, I have no problem going into to compete with SJP for a client...... though in my experience unless the client is elderly with exactly £100,000 to invest and wants 5% cash and they are seeing SJP first...... then I know I am in trouble with a classic bond sale for ease done and dusted in a heart beat!!!!!

report this


Mar 03, 2013 at 09:56

And, of course, all IFA are squeaky clean on charges aren't they? Absolutely pristine.

You "holier than thou" IFAs can't be in the same class of so-called "professional advisers" who have simply used RDR as an excuse to raise their "ongoing" advice charges by 50% - 100%, i.e. from 0.5% of AUM in 2012 to 0.75% or more in 2013? No!! Surely not?

report this

Southern boy

Mar 03, 2013 at 11:02

I spent a large part of my life recruiting IFA's. I lost count of the people that I walked out on because they were taking 7/8% out of, yes you guessed it, BONDS. Worse, they intended to keep doing it for as long as they could get away with it. One further point, which may be very relevant to the problem facing some of the habitual SJP knockers on here. Do you think that there clients are all fools, happy to be ripped off. Do you think that they don't look at fund growth and returns. Perhaps this sheds some light onto how you view your own clients, and that would explain a lot.

report this

Bindair Dundat 2

Mar 03, 2013 at 11:40

@ Luxembourg - Mm... I think you miss the point. Going from ½% to 1% is simply about a re-division of the value chain. There should be no issue with a 1% ongoing fee if value is being delivered. In essence advisers are doing work that was hitherto delivered by the product provider and in a world of transparency the client knows who is taking what. SJP remain a little blurred and bundled and a TER at best of 2.3% with an adviser only taking 0.5% is high in anyone's eyes. A TER of < 2.0% with a 1% ongoing fee is more than achievable outside SJP - perhaps the reason they run on a 3% plus ½% model is because it is almost impossible to demonstrate added value when you are still in essence flogging products.

By the way I am not one of those who simply carp on about SJP – I am comfortable with any robust fee based proposition for a client that is transparent and adds value. The industry should have a level playing field and it does not. My earlier comment refers to The Regulator failing the customer here by allowing a major distributor to continue in very much a pre 2013 guise. David Bellamy’s protestations in a Fundweb/Money Marketing article dated 24 January 2013 of “We are not expensive” misses the point. The price is not the issue here it is the transparency or lack of it. He says “Looking across the piece it is difficult for the client to compare costs” It sure is with your lot David!

The SJP recruitment material uses energy tariffs, mobile phones, broadband costs and car finance with the line “while often well intentioned, the move to improve transparency and provide numerous choices for clients makes comparison very difficult” Why would a company make such a play of this if they had no issue with their pricing policy? Meanwhile those in Canary Wharf allow this to continue – it’s a farce

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

News sponsored by:

Opportunities emerge as production moves back home

As the UK coalition government strives to rebalance the national economy, so called 'reshoring' looks set to play an increasingly important role in economic recovery.

Today's top headlines

A spotlight on Alastair Mundy

Alastair Mundy met Citywire's Daniel Grote at the London Stock Exchange Studios for a detailed interview about the Investec Cautious Managed fund.

More about this article:

Look up the shares

  • St. James's Place PLC
    Register or Sign in to receive email alerts for items in your favourites whenever we write about them

More from us



Gov't cuts deferred state pension increase rate

by William Robins on Jul 22, 2014 at 13:31

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet