| Standard Life Demutualisation [message #382840] |
Do, 20 April 2006 14:20 |
|
Got it today. 264 shares with an estimated value of £590 - £713.
Discuss....
xiv
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #382845 ] |
Do, 20 April 2006 14:29 |
|
> Discuss....
Erm....Congratulations?
Badass.
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #382855 ] |
Do, 20 April 2006 15:43 |
|
louisxiv wrote:
> Got it today. 264 shares with an estimated value of £590 - £713.
As bribes go, it's an insult. So vote to stay mutual.
By the way, what was the threshold again?
75% of members to vote yes, or 75% or the votes cast to be yes?
If the latter, it is important that those who are not in favour
should make the effort to vote No, and not just to throw their
voting papers in the bin.
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #382888 ] |
Do, 20 April 2006 22:36 |
|
The important thing is what do you think? They're your shares.
I think that the only way for that company is up so I'll be keeping
mine. I hope they get taken over ASAP.
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #383111 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 10:47 |
|
Mutuality may be a good concept on paper but Standard Life during the stock
bear market found it wanting. Likewise with the various demutualisations in
the 1990s after the property market downturn - they look okay during the
boom times but the mask is ripped off during the bad times.
That's why I expect high flying Nationwide to be forced into demutualisation
after the next sizeable correction in the UK property maket.
Roland.
"Ronald Raygun" <no.spam [at] localhost.localdomain> wrote in message
news:1eM1g.56395$wl.5878 [at] text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> louisxiv wrote:
>
> > Got it today. 264 shares with an estimated value of £590 - £713.
>
> As bribes go, it's an insult. So vote to stay mutual.
>
> By the way, what was the threshold again?
> 75% of members to vote yes, or 75% or the votes cast to be yes?
>
> If the latter, it is important that those who are not in favour
> should make the effort to vote No, and not just to throw their
> voting papers in the bin.
>
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #383198 ] |
Mo, 24 April 2006 23:30 |
|
In message <e2i38o$fcl$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Roland Watson
<roland [at] artesyncp.com> writes
>
>Mutuality may be a good concept on paper but Standard Life during the stock
>bear market found it wanting.
Do you think that was SLs fault? What about the FSA telling them to
disinvest in equities just before the upturn? SL were (AFAIAA) the only
W/P company to borrow against their Equity Portfolio in order to meet
cash requirements whilst the market was low, but the FSA stepped in and
told them to stop it, at the worst possible moment. So what did they
have ti invest in instead? Yes, you've guessed, Government Stocks!
> Likewise with the various demutualisations in
>the 1990s after the property market downturn
??? InsCos or B/Socs? Was it the so called 'downturn' or the dergulation
of B/Socs which also happened at the same time. AIUI they b/socs
demutualised so as to raise market capital and to enable them to borrow
more to fund further lending.
>- they look okay during the
>boom times but the mask is ripped off during the bad times.
Ok, a bit like HBOS & Northern Rock??? B&B havent done well but that was
due to an obviously flawed business model. Abbey had crap management.
>
>That's why I expect high flying Nationwide to be forced into demutualisation
>after the next sizeable correction in the UK property maket.
Why will that happen? Why will they need market capital?
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #383222 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 03:12 |
|
louisxiv wrote:
> Got it today. 264 shares with an estimated value of £590 - £713.
>
> Discuss....
>
> xiv
>
>
I got 546, nah nah na na nah!
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #383317 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 17:02 |
|
"john boyle" <john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:+5wlEwDaNUTEFwXt [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
> In message <e2i38o$fcl$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Roland Watson
> <roland [at] artesyncp.com> writes
> >
> >Mutuality may be a good concept on paper but Standard Life during the
stock
> >bear market found it wanting.
>
> Do you think that was SLs fault? What about the FSA telling them to
> disinvest in equities just before the upturn?
Of course it was their fault, they weren't the only ones who had to get in
line so that is no excuse.
> SL were (AFAIAA) the only
> W/P company to borrow against their Equity Portfolio in order to meet
> cash requirements whilst the market was low, but the FSA stepped in and
> told them to stop it, at the worst possible moment.
Once again, they weren't discriminated against in that situation. They
didn't have the ability to cope.
> So what did they
> have ti invest in instead? Yes, you've guessed, Government Stocks!
I agree, they shouldn't have had to, but you're not implying the FSA had it
in for SL?
>
> > Likewise with the various demutualisations in
> >the 1990s after the property market downturn
>
> ??? InsCos or B/Socs? Was it the so called 'downturn' or the dergulation
> of B/Socs which also happened at the same time.
I said "various" not "all".
1995 was deregulation which was just after the property market hit bottom? I
suspect the
two events are not unrelated. You can't tell me the shock of that property
market
had *nothing* to do with building societies demutualising.
> AIUI they b/socs
> demutualised so as to raise market capital and to enable them to borrow
> more to fund further lending.
Probably because they lost so much capital from defaulters and borrowed
against the expectation of more good time for real estate which never came.
>
> >- they look okay during the
> >boom times but the mask is ripped off during the bad times.
>
> Ok, a bit like HBOS & Northern Rock??? B&B havent done well but that was
> due to an obviously flawed business model. Abbey had crap management.
Halifax and Northern Rock demutualised in 1997 before the 2000-2003 bear
market.
So they were not mutuals during the time under discussion.
>
> >
> >That's why I expect high flying Nationwide to be forced into
demutualisation
> >after the next sizeable correction in the UK property maket.
>
> Why will that happen? Why will they need market capital?
Too many underperforming loans/mortgages on their books.
I don't when it will happen, I merely present it as a likely situation.
Roland.
>
>
> --
> John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #383328 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 17:48 |
|
In message <e2ldl2$ec4$1$8302bc10 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Roland Watson
<roland [at] artesyncp.com> writes
>> Do you think that was SLs fault? What about the FSA telling them to
>> disinvest in equities just before the upturn?
>
>Of course it was their fault, they weren't the only ones
Not so. They were the *only* company who stayed in equities and borrowed
against the portfolio. About £8bn of borrowing I think. Show me another
who did that?
>who had to get in
>line so that is no excuse.
>
>> SL were (AFAIAA) the only
>> W/P company to borrow against their Equity Portfolio in order to meet
>> cash requirements whilst the market was low, but the FSA stepped in and
>> told them to stop it, at the worst possible moment.
>
>Once again, they weren't discriminated against in that situation.
Thats true, but the FSA didnt take account of SLs position.
> They
>didn't have the ability to cope.
Eh? If they had stayed in equities the situation would have been quite
different today.
>
>> So what did they
>> have ti invest in instead? Yes, you've guessed, Government Stocks!
>
>I agree, they shouldn't have had to, but you're not implying the FSA had it
>in for SL?
No, not at all. They just interfered with everybody.
>
>>
>> > Likewise with the various demutualisations in
>> >the 1990s after the property market downturn
>>
>> ??? InsCos or B/Socs? Was it the so called 'downturn' or the dergulation
>> of B/Socs which also happened at the same time.
>
>I said "various" not "all".
>
>1995 was deregulation which was just after the property market hit bottom? I
>suspect the
>two events are not unrelated. You can't tell me the shock of that property
>market
>had *nothing* to do with building societies demutualising.
I cant see how it effected the b/socs under their old regulation system.
After deregulation the traditional clearers and wodges of other
non-b/soc mortgage lenders entered the market applying far stiuffer
competition.
The bigger societies, i.e. Halifax, Abbey, A&L etc., had been crying out
for years to be able to raise capital on the markets, so ti wasnt as
though it was brought in quick.
>
>> AIUI they b/socs
>> demutualised so as to raise market capital and to enable them to borrow
>> more to fund further lending.
>
>Probably because they lost so much capital from defaulters
I note the use of the word 'probably'.
In fact provisions for bad debts have not been a problem for any B/Soc
in modern times except the Leamington Spa and the Town & Country, but in
both cases that was due to reckless lending.
> and borrowed
>against the expectation of more good time for real estate which never came.
Eh? B/Soc borrowing regs wouldnt have allowed that to happen!
>
>>
>> >- they look okay during the
>> >boom times but the mask is ripped off during the bad times.
>>
>> Ok, a bit like HBOS & Northern Rock??? B&B havent done well but that was
>> due to an obviously flawed business model. Abbey had crap management.
>
>Halifax and Northern Rock demutualised in 1997 before the 2000-2003 bear
>market.
>So they were not mutuals during the time under discussion.
Perhaps an example of one that does fit your scenario then?
>
>>
>> >
>> >That's why I expect high flying Nationwide to be forced into
>demutualisation
>> >after the next sizeable correction in the UK property maket.
>>
>> Why will that happen? Why will they need market capital?
>
>Too many underperforming loans/mortgages on their books.
'Underperforming'?
Hmm. A drop in house values does not predict a splurge of debt
provisions, that only happens when borrowers cant afford to pay.
Nationwide still cover their higher LTVs with Indeminties, so I cant see
that happening.
>
>I don't when it will happen, I merely present it as a likely situation.
--
John Boyle
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #383374 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 21:52 |
|
|
So what, I got 739! ;)
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #383387 ] |
Di, 25 April 2006 23:30 |
|
Ed_Zep wrote:
> So what, I got 739! ;)
>
Ah, but I got mine for nothing!
(I contracted out of serps for a year when the Government was pushing it
back in around 1990).
I made no voluntary contributions, and went self employed after 2 years
of it. So my serps is worth about £9k in SL plus the value of the shares.
Am I the only one who has MADE money out of SL's with profit scheme? ;-)
Actually, the ironic thing is that SL have been writing to me every year
for about four telling me I should put the money back into serps.
Glad I didn't take them up on it!
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #383491 ] |
Mi, 26 April 2006 19:38 |
|
"Sharky" <spam [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b7iopF10g880U1 [at] individual.net...
> Ed_Zep wrote:
>> So what, I got 739! ;)
>>
> Ah, but I got mine for nothing!
> (I contracted out of serps for a year when the Government was pushing it
> back in around 1990).
> I made no voluntary contributions, and went self employed after 2 years of
> it. So my serps is worth about £9k in SL plus the value of the shares.
> Am I the only one who has MADE money out of SL's with profit scheme? ;-)
>
> Actually, the ironic thing is that SL have been writing to me every year
> for about four telling me I should put the money back into serps.
> Glad I didn't take them up on it!
same here.
(1073 if there's a competition)
tim
|
|
|
| Re: Standard Life Demutualisation [message #383564 ] |
Do, 27 April 2006 11:06 |
|
Any idea of the expected range of prices of the shares?
"Roland Watson" <roland [at] artesyncp.com> wrote in message
news:e2ldl2$ec4$1$8302bc10 [at] news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "john boyle" <john [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:+5wlEwDaNUTEFwXt [at] johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <e2i38o$fcl$1$8300dec7 [at] news.demon.co.uk>, Roland Watson
>> <roland [at] artesyncp.com> writes
>> >
>> >Mutuality may be a good concept on paper but Standard Life during the
> stock
>> >bear market found it wanting.
>>
>> Do you think that was SLs fault? What about the FSA telling them to
>> disinvest in equities just before the upturn?
>
> Of course it was their fault, they weren't the only ones who had to get in
> line so that is no excuse.
>
>> SL were (AFAIAA) the only
>> W/P company to borrow against their Equity Portfolio in order to meet
>> cash requirements whilst the market was low, but the FSA stepped in and
>> told them to stop it, at the worst possible moment.
>
> Once again, they weren't discriminated against in that situation. They
> didn't have the ability to cope.
>
>> So what did they
>> have ti invest in instead? Yes, you've guessed, Government Stocks!
>
> I agree, they shouldn't have had to, but you're not implying the FSA had
> it
> in for SL?
>
>>
>> > Likewise with the various demutualisations in
>> >the 1990s after the property market downturn
>>
>> ??? InsCos or B/Socs? Was it the so called 'downturn' or the dergulation
>> of B/Socs which also happened at the same time.
>
> I said "various" not "all".
>
> 1995 was deregulation which was just after the property market hit bottom?
> I
> suspect the
> two events are not unrelated. You can't tell me the shock of that property
> market
> had *nothing* to do with building societies demutualising.
>
>> AIUI they b/socs
>> demutualised so as to raise market capital and to enable them to borrow
>> more to fund further lending.
>
> Probably because they lost so much capital from defaulters and borrowed
> against the expectation of more good time for real estate which never
> came.
>
>>
>> >- they look okay during the
>> >boom times but the mask is ripped off during the bad times.
>>
>> Ok, a bit like HBOS & Northern Rock??? B&B havent done well but that was
>> due to an obviously flawed business model. Abbey had crap management.
>
> Halifax and Northern Rock demutualised in 1997 before the 2000-2003 bear
> market.
> So they were not mutuals during the time under discussion.
>
>>
>> >
>> >That's why I expect high flying Nationwide to be forced into
> demutualisation
>> >after the next sizeable correction in the UK property maket.
>>
>> Why will that happen? Why will they need market capital?
>
> Too many underperforming loans/mortgages on their books.
>
> I don't when it will happen, I merely present it as a likely situation.
>
> Roland.
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> John Boyle
>
>
|
|
|
