Yesterday I published an article by Gordon Aitken that stood up for SJP after it had taken a stock-marketing beating for losing customers.
My argument has consistently been that SJP serves a place in society, they are an expense that many people do not want to pay but for many wealthy people they provide a service that is reliable and comforting. For the best part of 50 years they have done what no other financial adviser and wealth manager can do. They have become a household name among the well-off.
My opinion (and to an extend Gordon’s) have met some fierce opposition. This is not one that Suffolk Boy can stomach!
More delicately , but equally vehemently , Derek Scott expands
This is of course taking into account the capacity of smart people like Derek to be smarter than the advisers who they can now by-pass. Here is someone thinking from his own experience and he’s right, if we were as smart as Derek there would be no SJP!
Derek would like the conversation that he’s having on Linked in to be posted in one place. The best I can do is to collect sensible thoughts from social media on a pleasantly cool Sunday morning!
Derek had asked on Linked in his question that I’ve re-posted above, he followed up..
There is of course this blog, I cannot guarantee to have found all comments , but these are from Eugen Neagu
and again
Gordon replies and Eugen continues the conversation 
I am happy to publish comments that relate to the matter I have posted. I haven’t posted all that I have found as not all were relevant to the question of whether SJP is a sustainable business.