SJP Annual Value Assessment Statement
The Assessment of Value report (also known as a Value Assessment Statement) is a regulatory document that we produce each year following the SJP Unit Trust Group Board’s review of our funds’ performance, charges, and support services.
In the report, we provide details of how we deliver value and the actions we’ve taken over the assessment period. This is part of our commitment to giving you clear and fair information about your investments with us.
We remain confident in the value that our investment proposition delivers in helping you achieve your financial goals.
If you have any questions about the statement, please contact your St. James’s Place Partner.
The value of an investment with St. James's Place will be directly linked to the performance of the funds selected and the value may fall as well as rise. You may get back less than the amount invested.
Value Assessment Statement 2025 - the results
Our 2025 Assessment of Value report is now available. This latest review, carried out by the board of St. James’s Place Unit Trust Group (UTG), contains an assessment of SJP’s funds based on seven different criteria over the 15 months to 30 June 2025. Together these factors produce a picture of overall value delivered to unitholders. Here is a brief summary of the results, changes that have taken place to enhance value and how to read this report.
SJP’s 2025 Assessment of Value report highlights that over 80% of the SJP fund range has provided value over the 15 months to end of June 2025 (the review period). This breaks down as 36 funds out of the 44 assessed and represents 88% of the group’s funds under management.
This is a marked improvement from 2024’s assessment in which 71% of funds were assessed by the SJP Unit Trust Group Board (UTG) as delivering value and up from 67% in 2023. Much of this is down to what the board had noted was a strong year for performance across the fund range. More than 96% of our fund range delivered positive returns, after charges, over this review period.
Summary
Eight of the 44 funds were flagged as delivering insufficient value and improvement is needed. Work is already underway to improve these funds. A big part of this stems from SJP’s multi-year project to separate its charges, thereby enabling a more balanced comparison with competitor’s funds. Comparisons to peers are a cornerstone of the UK regulator’s (FCA) criteria for assessment in the annual report. SJP’s charging structure, separating the cost of the funds from product and advice, did not change until the end of the review period covered by the 2025 assessment.
At the end of August 2025, most clients in the funds covered by the report were moved to the S unit class. While this unit class fell outside the primary review, we have included it in the 2025 report for reference.
Go to page 22 in the report for the full table highlighting which funds were rated as offering value or not as well as the individual ratings in each of the seven criteria as outlined by the FCA.
For every fund we’ve given either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ response to the question of whether it has delivered overall value through the 15-month review period to 30 June 2025. We believe this is a clear and definitive assessment overall.
There are seven individual criteria that makes up that determination. Each of these is assessed using a red/amber/green rating. This is why clients will see some funds are highlighted as delivering value, even though some underlying components are rated as red or amber.
No, each of the seven individual criteria hold equal weighting. However, for the majority of the eight funds identified as delivering insufficient value in this year’s report, it did come down to the performance and comparable market rates criteria. In seven of the eight, the previous SJP charging structure played a role.
For example, two of the eight funds singled out were: Global Government Bond and Global Government Inflation-Linked Bond. These are both managed with an approach that sees them closely track indices. Funds that do this will always underperform the index they track, given an index doesn’t have charges. However, while they did exactly what they are intended to do, the impact of SJP’s previous charging structure had an outsized impact on their performance and charges compared to similar products offered elsewhere, which is why they were rated as offering insufficient value.
While the review period covered a strong year for performance across the range versus their respective peer groups, 18 funds out of the 44 were still red rated for performance in the 2025 report. One fund, Sustainable & Responsible Equity, was rated as too new to rate on this criterion.
The 18 red ratings is a 50% improvement from the 2024 report, where 36 funds were rated red on the performance criteria. As noted in previous reports, SJP’s previous charging structure – which includes the cost of advice and platform-like services – impacts how the performance of the funds appears net-of-charges versus peers who do not include such charges.
Additionally, the UTG board assesses the net performance of each fund against market benchmarks, which have no charges at all. This represents a high bar.
Please go to the individual assessment pages to see a more details on the ratings specific to each fund.
As part of SJP’s standard monitoring and assessment process, the investment team will look to make changes to funds as needed to meet their objectives and deliver fair value for clients. In the case of Global Quality, rated as offering insufficient value this year and last, changes have already been made but their impact has yet to be realised given they only took effect quite late in the 2025 review time frame.
One notable success in this area is the Japan fund. Rated as offering insufficient value overall in the 2024 Assessment of Value report, the fund underwent changes to its management that had a positive impact in this year’s assessment. This improvement has yet to be fully realised in the five-year numbers, so the Japan fund remains on a red rating under the performance criteria, but it was taken into account for the fund’s overall value rating.
Statements from previous years
These statements are based on facts and figures that were correct at the time of original publication.