Standard Life Share Capital consolidation?

bowlhead99

They are probably best rid of you.

It is in every company's interests to have a supportive investor base who make an effort to understand how shares work. You seem to have no understanding of what has happened, what you still own and what you have been paid out or why. It is outrageous that you be allowed to vote at company meetings. If they didn't already have a hugely supportive set of investors who hold billions of shares and are happy with the way things are going, and instead had mostly people like you, they would never get anything done and might already be out of business.

"It has benefited SL massively". If that is true, good. You are one of the owners of SL! You should be happy when things benefit them massively!

piker1957

Durley 123, where do you get a price of £5.60 from? SL shares have never been that high, in fact they're now pretty close to their highest price of £4.8660 which was reached on 19th March, i.e. after they consolidated. Google is your friend https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=standard%20life%20share%20price%20history

Durley123

piker1957 wrote: »

Durley 123, where do you get a price of £5.60 from? SL shares have never been that high, in fact they're now pretty close to their highest price of £4.8660 which was reached on 19th March, i.e. after they consolidated. Google is your friend

As a new poster I cannot attach a link but if you look at uk.finance.yahoo.com you will see a different result for SL.

Durley123

bowlhead99 wrote: »

They are probably best rid of you.

It is in every company's interests to have a supportive investor base who make an effort to understand how shares work. You seem to have no understanding of what has happened, what you still own and what you have been paid out or why. It is outrageous that you be allowed to vote at company meetings. If they didn't already have a hugely supportive set of investors who hold billions of shares and are happy with the way things are going, and instead had mostly people like you, they would never get anything done and might already be out of business.

"It has benefited SL massively". If that is true, good. You are one of the owners of SL! You should be happy when things benefit them massively!

I understand what has happened and why I have been paid out less than anticipated. The dates and the share values on the dates in question in the post above are 100% correct.
Yes I am one of the owners but I now have less than before so I don't see why I should be happy.
Would I be correct in thinking that you don't have any SL shares?

gt94sss2

Durley123 wrote: »

I understand what has happened and why I have been paid out less than anticipated.

Actually, you and I have been paid 73p/share which is exactly what they said.

In terms of the share consolidation - our shares where not sold. They were effectively simply divided by a fraction to make each holding smaller - but the total number of shares in issue were also reduced by the same fraction meaning we each own the same % of the company as we did before.

Its the same way any consolidation is carried out and exactly the opposite if they decide to issue new shares (i.e. have a share split)

Regards
Sunil

Durley123

gt94sss2 wrote: »

Actually, you and I have been paid 73p/share which is exactly what they said.

In terms of the share consolidation - our shares where not sold. They were effectively simply divided by a fraction to make each holding smaller - but the total number of shares in issue were also reduced by the same fraction meaning we each own the same % of the company as we did before.

Its the same way any consolidation is carried out and exactly the opposite if they decide to issue new shares (i.e. have a share split)

Regards
Sunil

That is what I was told when I rang SL, however I insisted that I wanted a better explanation due to low number of shares still held after the payment of the dividend. I was later rung by someone with a better understanding who gave me the explanation quoting the dates and share prices I have detailed above. It just so happens that the ratio is 9/11ths.

gt94sss2

Durley123 wrote: »

That is what I was told when I rang SL, however I insisted that I wanted a better explanation due to low number of shares still held after the payment of the dividend. I was later rung by someone with a better understanding who gave me the explanation quoting the dates and share prices I have detailed above. It just so happens that the ratio is 9/11ths.

I'm not sure I would agree that the second person that you spoke to had a much better understanding - probably why all the SL documentation say they do not give financial advice re: shareholding.

Its probably better to think of it as the following: the deal to sell the operations in Canada and give the 73p was actually announced in September last year and the shares rose then. The shares were about 384p before the announcement and closed on 13 March at £4.56 that is a difference of 72p. Of course in between you had the daily ups and downs of the share price but you are getting what Standard Life promised.

The £4.01 was simply the figure used when SL wrote to shareholders and used as an example of what would happen - as that was the share price when the documents were produced. The actual share price is/was irrelevant to the 73p.

And 9/11 was the fraction chosen - because when they chose it - would mean that the share price would be largely unchanged afterwards (rather than be 73p lower)..

Regards
Sunil