Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Standard Life Aberdeen Plc LSE:SLA London Ordinary Share GB00BF8Q6K64 ORD 13 61/63P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.15 0.08% 192.90 10,643,753 16:35:15
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
192.15 192.60 196.00 185.55 192.45
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
General Financial 3,993.00 243.00 11.20 17.2 4,965
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
17:47:32 O 10,819 192.90 GBX

Standard Life Aberdeen (SLA) Latest News (4)

More Standard Life Aberdeen News
Standard Life Aberdeen Takeover Rumours

Standard Life Aberdeen (SLA) Discussions and Chat

Standard Life Aberdeen Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
04/4/202011:23Standard Life Aberdeen pension fund, trading without SIPP6
03/4/202022:12Standard Life Aberdeen PLC179
26/3/202017:46Standard Life Thread Post AAM Merger31
26/3/202014:31Standard Life SLA2,322
11/12/201810:25Profit Warning ? Market Cap loss Ј 5.5 billion ++-

Add a New Thread

Standard Life Aberdeen (SLA) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2020-04-03 17:30:16192.9010,81920,869.85O
2020-04-03 16:47:33192.88187,734362,103.22O
2020-04-03 16:47:19189.1285,754162,176.25O
2020-04-03 16:25:32192.9776,911148,411.31O
2020-04-03 16:20:19192.9056,292108,587.27O
View all Standard Life Aberdeen trades in real-time

Standard Life Aberdeen (SLA) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
04/4/2020
09:20
Standard Life Aberdeen Daily Update: Standard Life Aberdeen Plc is listed in the General Financial sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker SLA. The last closing price for Standard Life Aberdeen was 192.75p.
Standard Life Aberdeen Plc has a 4 week average price of 170.30p and a 12 week average price of 170.30p.
The 1 year high share price is 338.20p while the 1 year low share price is currently 170.30p.
There are currently 2,574,021,492 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 14,869,148 shares. The market capitalisation of Standard Life Aberdeen Plc is £4,965,287,458.07.
27/3/2020
15:33
mcunliffe1: I posted this a couple of days ago on the Chinese Investor thread Spud: I've been keeping an eye on the SLA share buyback program lately. I find it fascinating there's little adjustment to the buying pattern given the wide swings in the share price - particularly downwards of late. For example, back in mid Feb. they purchased about 618,000 shares at about 323p each on average. This average price fell throughout Feb. to around 272p and to be fair, the number of shares purchased increased towards 1.5m at that time. So they spent double the amount of real cash at the end of Feb. compared to mid. Feb. More recently however, the avg. share price has been around 207p on 17Mar, 191p on 18th, 180 on 19th, 195 on the 20th and 177 on the 23rd. This is the pattern: Date Qty Avg. Price £ spent ------------------------------------------------ 16Mar 2.5m 190p 4.75m 17Mar 0.785m 207p 1.63m 18Mar 2.05m 191p 3.92m 19Mar 1.88m 180p 3.38m 20Mar 2.63m 195p 5.13m 23Mar 2.08m 178p 3.68m 24Mar 0.791m 187p 1.48m 25Mar no reported purchases 26Mar no reported purchases I'm struggling to see a pattern whereby more shares are purchased as the price is falling and less when it's rising (apart from a very small qty purchased on 17th March). I appreciate hindsight is wonderful but I'm depressed to think they've spent about £4m a day buying often at prices above £3 a share. The quantity ultimately cancelled is such a miniscule proportion of the total quantity still issued. Can this really have been beneficial?
26/3/2020
09:39
mcunliffe1: You bet I am P.O. A simple example. A company is deemed to be worth, say, £100 and is known to have cash assets of, say, £10. The company embarks upon a share buy-back and uses £5 of the £10 cash assets buying up its own shares and then cancelling them. At the end of the process the company is deemed to be worth £95 as it's spent £5 of the £10 cash. In theory, the lesser number of shares in circulation represent a lower valued company, so should be 5% lower in value. However, we are talking very small percentages of shares in this buy-back. Some shares were being bought at £3.33 just before Christmas and at £1.77 three days ago. Almost half-priced. I maintain that SLA could have used the cash more productively had they bought other company's shares - ie. acted as a true Investment Company. That said, buying their own shares when the price is at a historic low point makes sense but only if you stop when the price starts to rise. Continue again when the share falls back to that same or a worse low point. Dec 2018 was a low point, Feb 2019 again, March 2019 was slightly better, but low and Aug 2019 also low. But, they continued to spend the cash even as a prolonged rise in the share price occured between Sept 2019 and Feb 2020. Don't tell me that was a result of the share buy-back because practically every other company in the market was seeing rising S.P.'s during that same period. C.I. likes Novacyt. Had SLA also liked Novacyt and bought THEIR shares instead of their own they'd have seen a 1200+% increase - since JANUARY 2020. That's what investment companies are supposed to do - invest in rising stars.
24/3/2020
16:45
mcunliffe1: I love your optimism C.I. I've been keeping an eye on the SLA share buyback program lately. I find it fascinating there's little adjustment to the buying pattern given the wide swings in the share price - particularly downwards of late. For example, back in mid Feb. they purchased about 618,000 shares at about 323p each on average. This average price fell throughout Feb. to around 272p and to be fair, the number of shares purchased increased towards 1.5m at that time. So they spent double the amount of real cash at the end of Feb. compared to mid. Feb. More recently however, the avg. share price has been around 207p on 17Mar, 191p on 18th, 180 on 19th, 195 on the 20th and 177 on the 23rd. This is the pattern: Date Qty Avg. Price £ spent ------------------------------------------------ 16Mar 2.5m 190p 4.75m 17Mar 0.785m 207p 1.63m 18Mar 2.05m 191p 3.92m 19Mar 1.88m 180p 3.38m 20Mar 2.63m 195p 5.13m 23Mar 2.08m 178p 3.68m I'm struggling to see a pattern whereby more shares are purchased as the price is falling and less when it's rising (apart from a very small qty purchased on 17th March). I appreciate hindsight is wonderful but I'm depressed to think they've spent about £4m a day buying often at prices above £3 a share. The quantity ultimately cancelled is such a miniscule proportion of the total quantity still issued. Can this really have been beneficial?
23/11/2019
14:25
spud: https://investomania.co.uk/2019/11/do-ftse-100-shares-barclays-imperial-brands-and-standard-life-aberdeen-have-sound-recovery-prospects/ Do FTSE 100 shares Barclays, Imperial Brands and Standard Life Aberdeen have sound recovery prospects? The share price performances of Barclays PLC (LON:BARC) (BARC.L), Imperial Brands PLC (LON:IMB) (IMB.L) and Standard Life Aberdeen PLC (LON:SLA) (SLA.L) have been disappointing of late in my opinion. Barclays, for instance, may have surged higher in recent weeks. But it is still flat on its past 12 months performance, which leaves the bank trading on a P/E ratio of 7.6. This suggests to me that it could offer good value for money while it is forecast to post a rise in EPS of 11% next year. The bank’s performance could be hurt by global macroeconomic uncertainties to my mind. I think its share price may be volatile over the near term as a result, but that its current valuation may factor in many of the risks it faces. Therefore, I’m upbeat about Barclays’ potential to post improving capital returns over the long run. Imperial Brands may continue to be an unpopular share in the short run to my mind. I think a new CEO may look to make changes to its business model, since its recent trading updates have been below expectations in terms of the growth rate of its next-generation products. A new CEO may, for instance, look to ramp-up investment in reduced-risk products. I wouldn’t be surprised if this leads to a lower dividend outlook in the short run. But in the long run, this may create a stronger business that can more easily reward shareholders. I’m not expecting a rapid rise in the Imperial Brands share price in the short run. But I do feel that it could beat the FTSE 100 over a multi-year time period. Standard Life Aberdeen has gained ground in the last few months after a challenging period saw its stock price decline over the past few years. Investors seem to be getting onboard with the company’s rationalisation strategy, as well as the investment it is making in new fund launches and financial products. I feel that the company’s prospects could be impacted by changes to the global macroeconomic outlook. Therefore, I’m expecting volatility to be high, but also believe that Standard Life Aberdeen’s 7% dividend yield is attractive at the moment. spud
01/3/2019
09:21
kenmitch: Agree why Directors prefer buybacks, even when (as with SLA buybacks) they prove a waste of money unless done at a bargain price. But Companies like SLA are also very reluctant to cut the dividend. Cut the dividend and Income Funds can want to sell.... which puts further pressure on the share price in addition to the downside from the dividend cut itself. From the small investors point of view special dividends when they can be afforded, on top of the ordinary dividends, work FAR better than buybacks. BIG SLA share price fall since they started buying back shows that so clearly. It's simple. With buybacks investors don't receive ANY money but with special dividends they do and they can do what they like with it. Whereas buybacks work best for the Directors as if their bonus pay is linked to eps, then buybacks mean eps will be higher than it would have been without buybacks. Many private investors AND PROFESSIONAL COMMENTATORS just swallow the nonsense that buybacks "reward investors." They don't. But they often reward Directors. No wonder so many Companies go for them.
21/11/2018
11:32
kenmitch: Buybacks don't support the share price. Look no further than Apple. They are spending $100 BILLION on buybacks this year. That hasn't stopped the share price falling by over 20% in recent weeks. Nor have the SLA buybacks supported the SLA share price. Buybacks DO mean eps will be higher than it otherwise would have been. Directors often like buybacks when their bonus pay is linked to eps! And fewer shares in issue does make it less costly to pay dividends on the remaining shares. Buybacks also reward those who want out, as there is a willing buyer. They gain at the expense of those who stay invested. So buybacks DO reward investors, but often NOT the ones who stay invested! I discovered that years ago and now invest accordingly. e.g sold out of SLA when they started buying back (above £4) but bought back (too soon?) on Monday as so much bad news now looks priced in, and the dividend if maintained is too good to miss. Also some of the things investors don't like about SLA like dual management are very easy to fix.
13/8/2018
17:39
kenmitch: Pierre Oreilly I hope you realise that my replies are simply in response to your inaccurate "facts" and are not aimed at you personally. You might be the salt of the earth! BUT the most dangerous posters on ADVFN bulletin boards are not the complete idiots who wreck some threads (e.g Tern) and not worth replying to, but those whose posts give the impression they know what they are talking about when they don't. MCunliffe1 has pointed out some of your mistakes and inconsistencies in the post above this one, so I'll leave most of those to him. And so did scrawl in his excellent reply. Your last reply and previous posts show basic misconceptions or factual errors:- 1. e.g you started by posting that as most people voted for it that's what they wanted. True!! But that doesn't then mean that decision was the right one. e.g The majority voted for Brexit and for Trump. Time will tell (and I'm NOT starting a debate on that!) whether those were good decisions. The majority might vote for something that turns out to be a disaster. Company history is littered with terrible aqusisitions that were voted for at the time that ended up either bankrupting that Company or nearly doing so. 2. In post 649 you wrote;- "unassailably , a buyback increases the price from what it would otherwise have been. If it would have dropped 50p without the buyback then withe the buyback it may only drop 20p for example." That's tosh! Do you really think that before a share is priced a computer or whoever/whatever calculates a share price to take account of perhaps daily buybacks? Impossible. If you want the facts read scrawl's reply again. He explains correctly, as I have too, that YES, buybacks DO mean higher eps than would otherwise have been the case. BUT higher eps does not always mean a higher share price. If news is bad, or profits disappoint, or there are more selling than buying then the share price will drop and again no way are buybacks factored in before the price is marked down. 3. Again a simple factual error and this time from not reading a post carefully. You wrote:_ "I think pointing out a share which had a buyback and subsequently fallen in price as proof they are a poor way of returning cash massively misses the point." That's not what I wrote! I gave examples where that had happened. I could also give examples where a share had done very well after buybacks. I was trying and failing to get you to understand that buybacks do not automatically mean a higher share price than if they hadn't bought back. 4. And as for your "I should have complained to the Board and too late to be whinging now comment," again you have misunderstood. I don't currently hold SLA having sold soon after their merger. I AM now tempted thanks to the much lower share price along with a very attractive dividend (and looked here to see if any useful information). I've made clear that though I prefer dividends to buybacks there are plus points for buybacks too. And I used NEXT as an example of plus and minus points. e.g Next have now bought back more than half their shares and for anyone looking to buy NEXT after the big share price drop instead of holding on during it the share was so tempting at £38 that I jumped in then. With 50% fewer shares in issue NEXT can afford to pay higher dividends on the shares remaining. So I'm happy to accept further NEXT buybacks now as I would be if and when deciding to buy SLA. Finally have you read any detailed research on buybacks? Your inaccurate and confused posts suggest strongly not? e.g admittedly a few years ago, detailed research from Morgan Stanley showing how the share prices of Companies buying back subsequently underperformed those in the sector who did not buy back. That doesn't mean all buybacks or wrong nor that it is always better to have dividends. It's all a matter of opinion but it helps when posting your opinions here if you have some knowledge about the topic you are posting about.
13/8/2018
12:52
kenmitch: In case anyone is wondering about buybacks. I don't like them and much prefer dividends, but that's by the way. Buybacks do not always mean a higher share price. If they did investors would always win if only buying shares in companies buying back. Yes they are always referred to as "a return to shareholders" but that doesn't necessarily mean that shareholders are rewarded. Indeed there is a lot of evidence to show that buybacks reward those who want out as there is a ready buyer (the Company) at the expense of those who stay. A couple of examples and these are facts and not opinions. 1. NEXT. It is widely accepted that Next are the bellwether for how to do buybacks. They ONLY buy back when thinking the shares are good value. If not confident on that score they go for special dividends instead. BUT despite that sensible approach to buybacks (unlike many Compannies who buyback regardless or not of whether share looks fully or even overpriced) NEXT bought back heavily AHEAD of what turned out to be a big share price fall from £80 to £36. So those rewarded by those buybacks were not those who stayed with NEXT but those who got out ahead of the falls and big investors who were able to sell in size thanks to NEXT being happy to take their shares off them. 2. Many companies have seen big share price falls even when buying back heavily and while buying back nearly every day. e.g MAN share price crashed while they were buying back. e.g BP spent £30 billion on buybacks and their share fell heavily after then and then fell even further after the Gulf of Mexico disaster. The money they spent on buybacks could have covered most of the compensation bill. Is SLA buying back going to see a guaranteed increase in the share price? NO. BUT a big plus is that at least SLA are buying back while the shares look to be good value so for those who like buybacks there is a stronger case for SLA buying back than for those Companies who buyback even when share looks very overvalued. Why are Directors so keen on buybacks? Partly because buybacks DO guarantee higher eps than would have been the case without buying back. And Director bonus pay is often based on eps. Have posted this as a one off in case anyone is interested in a few basic bits of information ahead of ill informed rubbish. There are strong points for buybacks and strong points against them. I prefer dividends because with dividends we always get the money and that is not the case when I am supposedly "rewarded" with a buyback IF the share price goes and stays lower.
07/8/2018
09:45
speedsgh: Numis sees ‘deep value’ in Standard Life Aberdeen - HTTP://citywire.co.uk/money/the-expert-view-hsbc-tesco-and-william-hill/a1144545#i=5 The market is undervaluing Standard Life Aberdeen (SLA) especially after the successful flotation of its Indian joint venture business HDFC Asset Management Company, says Numis. Analyst David McCann retained his ‘buy’ recommendation and target price of 433p on Standard Life Aberdeen after oversubscribed shares in HDFC went to a c.65% premium, implying value of 50p per share for SLA shareholders, far above Numis’ last published valuation of 28p. ‘Back of the envelope, at SLA’s current share price of 308p, we calculate this means the market value of SLA’s investments at live prices and capital returns/current year dividends alone nearly explain the whole SLA share price,’ he said. ‘We believe this highlights the deep value opportunity for patient investors.’ McCann added that the market was ‘materially undervaluing SLA and we believe it offers a significant value opportunity’. The shares were flat at 308.1p yesterday.
24/2/2018
10:41
chinese investor: In the end, 200 years of history was undone in just a few weeks. The recently-merged Standard Life Aberdeen’s £3.2bn sale of its insurance business to Phoenix, announced on Friday, marked the final act in a field where it has been a leading force since its predecessor company was created in 1825, and completes its two-decade long shift to asset management. The deal was code-named Project Marvel, with the parties involved calling themselves “Thor”, “Ice Man” and “Quicksilver.” But while the protagonists might have seen themselves as superheroes, outside observers were less complementary. “It signals a rather ignominious end to a once glorious UK life assurance company,” says Eamonn Flanagan, an analyst with Shore Capital. The insurance sale marks one of Gerry Grimstone’s final acts as chairman of SLA. He announced on Friday that he would depart by the end of next year. Sir Gerry was central to the Phoenix deal, just as he was to the merger of Standard Life and Aberdeen Asset Management last year which made an exit from insurance look inevitable. What was less inevitable was the choice of buyer. Lloyds was the early candidate. Talks before Christmas centred on the creation of a 60:40 partnership that would combine the Lloyds-owned Scottish Widows with Standard Life’s insurance business. Those talks fell apart shortly before Christmas with each side blaming the other for disagreements over the structure and control of the partnership. There were expensive consequences for SLA. Lloyds said last week that it would seek a new home for the £109bn of Scottish Widows assets that SLA manages, citing competition concerns. It could deprive SLA of up to a tenth of its profits, say analysts, and the asset manager’s shares fell 8 per cent on the news. Lloyds’ chief executive António Horta-Osório was said to be delighted. “He is not a man you want to cross,” says one person close to the talks. But SLA co-chief executive Martin Gilbert was upbeat last week despite the loss of the Scottish Widows assets. “I am laughing,” he said. “I am very confident about the future.” Mr Gilbert knew at the time that he still had cards to play. Lloyds was not the only candidate for the insurance book: an alternative was waiting in the wings, and talks were progressing nicely. SLA has had a close relationship with Phoenix, which specialises in buying up unwanted books of life insurance business, since 2014. It manages £46bn of assets for Phoenix. The idea that one day Phoenix would take on SLA’s life insurance business is not new. “There was chatter over several years,” said SLA’s other co-chief executive Keith Skeoch. But negotiations between the two only really picked up after Christmas, once the Lloyds talks had broken down. Then it was full steam ahead, with talks going on right up until the announcement of SLA’s full-year results at 7am on Friday. “This is ginormous for us,” said Clive Bannister, Phoenix’s chief executive. “It’s a game changer.” At a stroke, Phoenix’s assets will jump from £74bn to £240bn. It will be dealing with 10m customers rather than the previous 6m. “This is a monster deal for Phoenix and will properly test its integration abilities,” says Mr Flanagan at Shore. Mr Bannister said it will take two to four years to integrate the business, but that there is no need to rush it. Phoenix will pay just under £2bn in cash, part funded by a £950m rights issue, and it will give SLA a 19.9 per cent stake in the company and two seats on the board. There is also an asset management arrangement that will allow SLA to look after Phoenix’s money. SLA will be allowed to start selling down its Phoenix shares after a year, but insists it is in it for the long haul. The company, which was advised by JPMorgan Cazenove and Fenchurch Advisory Partners, has a lot to gain from staying close to its partner. The enlarged Phoenix will now generate more cash flow from its back books that can be used to fund more deals, and SLA will be in pole position to manage the assets that those deals produce. SLA even hopes that the sale of the insurance business could open the door for it to retain the £109bn of Scottish Widows assets. However, Scottish Widows is likely to argue that SLA is still a competitor. Phoenix, which was advised by Bank of America and HSBC, could find itself writing new business through SLA. Mr Gilbert said: “This is really good for the clients and people at [SLA]. Phoenix are a more natural business for Standard Life to partner with.” Despite those benefits, some analysts were sceptical about the deal. Some grumbled about the price. “The sale price is below our valuation for the business of £3.4bn,” says Colm Kelly at UBS. The share price reaction seemed to back up that view — SLA shares fell 2.5 per cent on Friday while Phoenix was up 7.3 per cent, despite the hefty rights issue. Another analyst who attended SLA’s presentation on Friday says: “There was very little love in the room. Even retiring chairman Gerry Grimstone slipped out halfway through the Q&A .̴1;. . could he be arrested for leaving the scene of an accident?” Copyright The Financial Times Limited
Standard Life Aberdeen share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
SLA
Standard L..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20200404 12:39:59