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

ReportInvestor

Gorgeous_George wrote:

Has anybody received their share allocation notice yet?

My 25-year endowment policy is 21 years old and I bet the shares won't cover recent 'adjustments'.

You may have to wait as long as the 28th April, as Standard Life don't want to have a legal bill from the Post Office workers' union .

You might get up to 10% of your policy surrender value as your variable rate windfall.

The good news is that I believe Standard are to ring-fence our WP fund from shareholders (the NU fund by comparison would give up 10% of its profits to shareholders) and the demutualisation will also inject £800K capital into the WP fund to give sustain it and possibly allow more investment freedom.

So those shares are looking more and more like "free money". Standard is looking after us as far as it can, although it can't "wish away" previous errors.

full-time-mum

Does anyone know whether these windfalls are taxed?

Endowment is in joint names with OH first. I don't pay tax so we could swap names so I get windfall - Ages ago SL said this could happen if we sent letter and asked but were tight lipped on tax implications "details have yet to be decided" was all I could get.

Can't imagine that what we get will in anyway compensate for short fall currently estimated (and still rising) on our statements.

Will any windfall now affect the value of compensation on our mis-selling claim which is currently in the (large) backlog awaiting the ombudsmans adjudication?

dunstonh

They do still have a degree of local support. Certainly my understanding is they have regional offices throughout the United Kingdom.

They do still have regional offices. However, my regional office went from being 30 miles away to 200 miles away. It is in a region...just not mine

Their products from my (admittedly limited) point of view are still fairly competitive. I know they lowered commission for you IFAs which may have made them seem less competitive. However, its the best product, not the best paying provider in terms of commission that should count.

Commission has nothing to do with it. Indeed, on their mini fund supermarket, the commissions are actually higher than the main fund supermarkets generally. The products are just not good enough nowadays and it has nothing to do with commission.

Norwich Union still pay ridiculous and unsustainable levels of commission on products which attracts IFAs despite their awful service.

I have great service out of Norwich Union. Although I have a personal rep who is only 30 miles away and two named people in the regional office who deal with my queries.

noahveil

ReportInvestor wrote:

the demutualisation will also inject £800K capital into the WP fund to give sustain it and possibly allow more investment freedom..

"£800K" won't make much of an impact on the WP fund

So those shares are looking more and more like "free money".

Are you serious ?

Try telling that to the thousands of long standing WP policyholders who have seen the values of their policies plunge in recent years. The "free" shares will, in many instances, only make up for a fraction of these falls.

EdInvestor

I have great service out of Norwich Union. Although I have a personal rep who is only 30 miles away and two named people in the regional office who deal with my queries.

I'm not surprsied DH, you are in Norfolk aren't you? If they can't look after you, heaven help the rest.

ReportInvestor

noahveil wrote:

"£800K" won't make much of an impact on the WP fund

Are you serious ?

Try telling that to the thousands of long standing WP policyholders who have seen the values of their policies plunge in recent years. The "free" shares will, in many instances, only make up for a fraction of these falls.

True. £800 million will have slightly more impact .

We can't wishfully go back to the days of wilful overbonussing by the board and a strong WP fund that could invest heavily in equities. Those factors are no longer going for us - whether we remain a mutual or convert to a plc.

And as a mutual, the WP fund, ie our investments, had to take the hit for £350m losses in 2004.

O course the shares won't take bonus payments back to their fanciful 2002 levels, and yes the falls have been greater at Standard than elsewhere. But we can't go back to 2000 and start all over again.

If I could have sold in 2000 and reinvested in 2003 I'd might be contemplating early retirement. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Ian_W

ReportInvestor wrote: Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

And foresight is a many splendoured thing! But none of us have that either.

I voted against DM in 2000 [yeah, when the windfall could have been 3x blah, blah] but who was to know a stock market crash of pretty horrendous proportions was only a short distance away. Or that Standards heavy reliance on equities [which had, I think, served it very well in the past] was going to have to change due to the FSA. Whether it was their fault or Standards, that it took place at the bottom of the market I really don't know. To me it wasn't just about the Board knowing best, the DM campaign was lead by carpetbaggers, and while I've nothing against them per se, by their very nature they're interested more in a quick profit than the long term future. Whereas my modest investments were long term ones, so based on SLs to then track record I made the wrong decision for all the right reasons. Or did I?

If a DM yes had happened in mid-2000 when would be company have floated? I very much doubt it could have happened within 12 months given the size and complexity of the task, 2.4 million members and all the regulatory hoops in several countries to jump through. So if it had gone to the market in 2001 or even into 2002 would 3x the present benefits have materialised given the Stock Market at that time? Wouldn't it have compounded the firesale of the family silver by throwing in the family home? I ask the questions w/o being sure of the answers. Perhaps it was the right decision after all - but for the wrong reasons?

This time around DM is the only game in town and having read through the blurb last night on it's incredibly slow website [good spot dh ] the situation seems to me about as good as it could be, all things considered.

Or am I missing something this time as well?

Lorian

full-time-mum wrote:

Does anyone know whether these windfalls are taxed?

section 10 in the proposal.

ReportInvestor

I agree with Ian W that the demutualisation process would have taken two years, but once it had begun we wouldn't have seen the need for overbonussing & other daft loss making initiatives to "prove" the value of mutuality and protect the reputations of the top brass.

And with an eye on the City, the bosses would have had to bring in fresh blood to the board and not risk so much of our capital on the stock market. So the timing [2002] wouldn't have been good, but Standard would have been a stronger animal than it is now.

But that is all water under the bridge. Another irrelevance for the future is whether the FSA is to blame for Standard's demise.

The All Party Parliamentary Committe on Mutuals was clear in its own mind that it was Standard's fault, not the Regulator's
I agree with the Committee, on this particular issue.

ReportInvestor

ReportInvestor wrote:

Gorgeous might get up to 10% of his policy surrender value as his variable rate windfall - [on a 21 year endowment].

GG could be looking to do even better according to this MSE post