Standard Life publish 'proposal for members' - inc. FIXED shares estimate £444 - £536

JCL

Announced this morning that all Standard Life members will receive a FIXED allocation of 185 shares. ESTIMATED range is 240p to 290p so this works out at £444 to £536.

In addition you'll receive variable allocation based on size of with profits investment and length of time.

Full details are on https://www.standardlife.com

Gorgeous_George

Having seen the surrender value of my policy drop by £4,500 over 4 years or so when I have pumped in another £2K+, I don't expect the demutualisation to make up the shortfall.

Can't see me voting in favour of demutualisation.

GG

ReportInvestor

Hi Gorgeous.

A no vote isn't going to stop your policy value falling.

The errors of the past can't be undone, I'm afraid.

Gorgeous_George

I know.

A 'no' vote won't make any difference as the large institutional investors will far outweigh my tiny protest. But I will feel better for it.




GG

ReportInvestor

Fair enough.

But if 25.1% do the same it will mean even more unemployed in Edinburgh and a company in real crisis.

Poppy9

so if I've held two policies with them for 20 years (1 endowment and 1 pension) how much on top of the basic allocation am I likely to get?

dunstonh

I'm confused as to why a stockmarket crash and the errors of the old "mutual" board are good reasons for you to vote "no".

SL really do need a Yes vote otherwise they are in trouble.

ReportInvestor

To Poppy

You will be able to afford a bottle of Cava .

Length of time is really important for windfall size, so you can be optimistic. But Standard hasn't produced any "identikit" examples to give a clue.

You will have to wait for your personalised quote in the post.

Then muliply the number of shares x £2.65 to get a rough idea.

Gorgeous_George

ReportInvestor wrote:

Fair enough.

But if 25.1% do the same it will mean even more unemployed in Edinburgh and a company in real crisis.

And the problem is?

dunstonh wrote:

I'm confused as to why a stockmarket crash and the errors of the old "mutual" board are good reasons for you to vote "no".

SL really do need a Yes vote otherwise they are in trouble.

I blame the FSA, not SL.

GG

ReportInvestor

Gorgeous_George wrote:

And the problem is?

Not enough capital. They blew £billions of it.

So they will not be able to fund new investment products, develop in more profitable areas outside the UK, away from with profits and keep up with the latest technology and developments.

GG wrote:

I blame the FSA, not SL.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

Unfortunately you can't vote against the FSA, and the damage has been done.

Ian_W

Sorry George,
The words "spite", "nose" and "cut-off" spring to mind. And as a mutual where do the large institutional investors come into play? I thought it was individual members who would vote for DM or not, as the case may be. Am I wrong?

Whoever was to blame is in the past. Why take it out on pension-holders like Poppy or endowment PHs like me? Can't see any sensible voices, anywhere, putting up any half reasonable case to remain mutual. If there was I'd certainly listen very carefully ... but if protest is more important common sense, that's your choice.

But do understand if I think it's half-baked!!