Views on Standard Life Aberdeen shares?

DairyQueen

I intend hanging on to mine. They are an aberration in my portfolio as I don't invest in single-company shares any more (far too risky for my barely-more-than-novice status). I don't see any reason to sell given that they make up just a small %age of my portfolio and the dividend is good. However, reports like this are alarming: a damning indictment of Absolute Return Funds and the advisors who recommend them.

Anyone know what percentage of total assets under management this fund constitutes for SLA? Perhaps I should revisit my decision to hold.

bowlhead99

DairyQueen wrote: »

reports like this are alarming: a damning indictment of Absolute Return Funds and the advisors who recommend them.

Much of the 'damning' there is being done by people offering rival products who believe they will get you a better / more suitable return.

Anyone know what percentage of total assets under management this fund constitutes for SLA? Perhaps I should revisit my decision to hold.

GARS is under £20bn. Overall assets under management/administration are over £500bn.

DairyQueen

Thanks BH. Excellent info. from you as always. I shall stay with my initial decision and hold. It will be interesting to see how things pan-out for SLA over the next few years.

Wizard_of_Id

boo-hoo wrote: »

Seeing as it was a done deal even before the General Meeting does anyone have any idea when we might get the "windfall". I seem to remember it was soon after they sold their Canada interests we received a cheque and fewer shares.
Thanks in advance

Cheques are on the way out as of today, roughly 34p per share held.

Share re-alignment is at 7 new shares for every 8 held.

molerat

BACS payment into my account this morning. 33.99p per share plus payment for any part share left over from the conversion.

DairyQueen

Ditto for me.

Hal17

Hello All - I posted this earlier as a separate thread. It seems to me that we are only getting our own money back, no additional gain at all?

I received a payment into my bank account today from Standard Life as part of a capital return to shareholders. I am sure I had read about this previously, but life moves on and you forget these things.

I read the following on line today - "The return of value is not a windfall as the company is effectively buying back part of investors’ existing holding".

I am confused, not difficult I must add.

So now I have less total shares after the swap and some extra cash in the bank which together is about equal to the value of the total shares I originally held yesterday. Standard Life say they have given back £1 billion to shareholders, but I have not seen any gain. Am I missing something or just being stupid. Thanks

molerat

The gain is hopefully in the split of future profits, less shares to share it amongst.

DairyQueen

molerat wrote: »

The gain is hopefully in the split of future profits, less shares to share it amongst.

That's the theory. Unfortunately, the market hasn't taken a positive view of SLA's business strategy.

Mine are windfall shares. Tbh, I would never have made a positive decision to invest in SLA, or, indeed in any single company share. I guess I concur with the market. I am guilty of lethargy in not selling when the share price was a great deal higher than its value in the lead-up to the sale of the life business.

Can they compete in the asset management market? They are up against the passives, plus a large number of companies already operating in the field. They are experiencing large outflows of capital.

The divi. is still good but could be cut if things continue as is. I think that, having trousered my few hundred quid, I will be selling. It's nothing like the business that demutualised all those years ago.

bowlhead99

Hal17 wrote: »

It seems to me that we are only getting our own money back, no additional gain at all?

Correct..

Money which was sitting in the bank account of the business(which ultimately belonged to the owners of the AS business, including you) has now been transferred into the bank accounts of the owners of the business, including you. You now have the money and the company doesn't.

The money that was in the company's bank account and able to be given to you, came from them selling part of their business. So:

- the business in which you are invested used to have more business operations,
- and then later the business in which you are invested had smaller operations and a large and un-needed pile of cash,
- and now the business in which you invested has the smaller operations but doesn't have the un-needed pile of cash, because it gave it to you and the other owners.

The only step in that process that has the potential to create value is the initial one where they agree to exchange part of their business to a buyer for what is hopefully a fair or good amount of cash compared to what they would have got by keeping it. The later stages -of reducing their bank account balance by giving some of it to you - doesn't magically create you free money. You just have a smaller investment in one hand and some cash in the other. A reasonable thing for them to do in the circumstances as there is no point them having a big pile of cash in the company bank account which they don't have an efficient use for.

Better give it to the owners and then each owner can decide whether they would like to keep it in their own personal bank account, or buy a different investment, or maybe some will buy more AS shares on the basis that the new leaner business will be better.

I read the following on line today - "The return of value is not a windfall as the company is effectively buying back part of investors’ existing holding".

Yes, you have sold them some of the company in exchange for some of the cash which the company had.

So now I have less total shares after the swap and some extra cash in the bank which together is about equal to the value of the total shares I originally held yesterday.

Yep

Standard Life say they have given back £1 billion to shareholders, but I have not seen any gain. Am I missing something or just being stupid. Thanks

They are correct as the business which was holding unused cash has given that cash back to the owners of the business because it was surplus to requirements. You wouldn't necessarily see an immediate gain from that.