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
  +1.10p +0.42% 266.10p 12,443,009 16:35:21
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
266.40p 266.50p 267.70p 263.00p 265.40p
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
General Financial 2,131.00 -830.00 29.10 9.1 6,849.5

Standard Life Aberdeen (SLA) Latest News (2)

More Standard Life Aberdeen News
Standard Life Aberdeen Takeover Rumours

Standard Life Aberdeen (SLA) Share Charts

1 Year Standard Life Aberdeen Chart

1 Year Standard Life Aberdeen Chart

1 Month Standard Life Aberdeen Chart

1 Month Standard Life Aberdeen Chart

Intraday Standard Life Aberdeen Chart

Intraday Standard Life Aberdeen Chart

Standard Life Aberdeen (SLA) Discussions and Chat

Standard Life Aberdeen Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
22/5/201910:05Standard Life SLA1,859
15/3/201918:12Standard Life Thread Post AAM Merger12
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
View all Standard Life Aberdeen trades in real-time

Standard Life Aberdeen (SLA) Top Chat Posts

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 265p.
Standard Life Aberdeen Plc has a 4 week average price of 257.70p and a 12 week average price of 235.10p.
The 1 year high share price is 374.40p while the 1 year low share price is currently 219.10p.
There are currently 2,574,021,492 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 8,498,594 shares. The market capitalisation of Standard Life Aberdeen Plc is £6,849,471,190.21.
fionascott1234: FOR SHAREHOLDERS WITH A RELATIVELY SHORT MEMORY ; Standard Life Aberdeen's sale of its insurance business to Phoenix Group has been overwhelming approved by shareholders after its chairman pledged it would help transform the company into one of the world's leading investment businesses.More than 99 per cent of shareholders of SLA which was formed last year through the merger of insurer Standard Life and fund manager Aberdeen Asset Management, backed each of the three resolutions relating to the sale.The sale will trigger a "return of value" of about £1.75 billion to the group's shareholdersAt that stage the company has committed to return £1 billion to shareholders in a share consolidation exercise. This will involve the issue and subsequent redemption of new "B" shares in the group.The company says the value of the exercise for shareholders will be a minimum of 33.4 pence sterling for every Standard Life Aberdeen share currently held.The return of value is not a windfall as the company is effectively buying back part of investors' existing holding. Any gain for shareholders on the original purchase price of their shares will be considered under capital gains tax rules.Standard Life Aberdeen will subsequently spend a further £750 million buying the consolidated shares in the marketplace. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited - 25th June, 2018NOTE THAT THE SHARE PRICE ON THAT DATE WAS 355p AND THIS EXERCISE VALUE WAS ESTIMATED TO ADD A MINIMUM OF 33.4p.THE SHARE PRICE TODAY IS - .......
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.
kenmitch: Agree about the buybacks not having any effect on the share price. SLA is yet another example of a company failing to realise that if they must buyback it is best to try and do so at lowest prices possible and not nearly every day while the share price is in free fall. That way at least they buyback more for less outlay. Also buybacks often reward those who want out as they can easily sell because there is a willing buyer in SLA, while those who stay loyally invested end up with heavy losses. Indeed an investor selling when SLA started buying back, and buying SLA back again now at current deflated price, looks a much better tactic than holding while the share is falling despite almost daily buybacks.
cyberian: Again HDFC standard Life in India and the 19% holding plus other ties SLA have with Phoenix are on the up...share price wise, and Deutsche Bank analyst very recent view/paper on demise or downside prospects for European Insurance companies appears somewhat mistaken, at least at present. Of course SLA has already signaled and the market knows that it has basically lost a slug of AUM with the recent move by Lloyds on the Scottish Widows front, but best reminded that the margins with that entity were low and accounted for only about 5% of SLA's not overly material. However, it was a loss but I would argue that that is already in the share price The new Chairman will be expected to enliven management and other material aspects of the SLA portfolio of business and interests, and with a hope for positive outcome in the US/China (which both parties now see as critical), we may well see a more positive momentum here...once momentum of positive expectations happens then the share price can gain ground very fast. We need to concentrate on new news/expectations rather than old news which I think has already been addressed in the share price I am long!!!
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.
fenners66: I really like the point of this post - which PO seems to have missed entirely MCunliffe1 9 Aug '18 - 09:02 - 639 of 667 So, an investment company uses spare cash to buy back its own shares in order to reduce the share capital of the company. During the buying phase the share price is likely to rise as a substantial number are being bought within a clearly defined period. I'd suspect that at the end of that period the share price will then revert to the trend it has established over the past six months, ie. falling. And that in a generally rising marketplace. I wonder if the executive bonus scheme relies upon a share price to reach a particular point somewhere before 21st Nov ember 2018. If I recall, their year-end is the 15th November. So, why can't an investment company utilise the "spare" capital in a more productive manner by investing it. It's what we pay them to do after all. Pertinent points 1 - Investment company - has surplus cash and does not know what to do with it in order to beat the potential increase in EPS which a buyback may make . WHY not ? Why should anyone invest with them if they admit that best potential return they can get from £175m is 10% ? Work the maths through at a £ 3.21 share price , 1.8% EPS on £964m profit......... So I thought that % was going to be lower ...... and 10% does not seem so bad - but their funds are targeting much higher returns with which to take their cut out of before it reaches the consumer so they should be doing better.... 2, We are talking about where the shares will be after buybacks NOT during. You add demand for the shares on ANY given day and if it exceeds supply they can go up. But tomorrow is another day and anything can happen - just because notional EPS has gone up does not mean a thing if supply exceeds demand the next day. 3, EPS for bonuses - yes all other things being equal an easy way out for the board. No risky asset or business buying to risk their returns - unlike the whole business model that means ALL the customers are risking their capital on the chance that SLA beats the market. As for shareholders voting for anything - most shareholders never vote, shares that are held by institutions mostly never vote against a resolution see the huge bonus schemes at house builders that made it passed. Its always headlines when a vote has a large "against %" let alone if a board ever actually loses. So essentially its the board that makes the decisions knowing full well its very unlikely to be questioned. I had the discussion about buybacks centred around a company with £2.5BN of debt where the debt could be reduced instead. There is the increased EPS to gain from not paying interest and fees on renewing every few years and the idea that since the enterprise value of the business is a function of the debt and equity - a reduction in the debt should lead to an increase in the equity value anyway (win win). Buybacks are NOT a return to shareholders - dividends do that - they are returning cash to EX Shareholders - so a carpetbagger may make a few quid and the investors get nothing but potential increase in EPS. Furthermore they are bought in the market from those who want out anyway they do not know who is getting them from them nor do they care its just a price to sell. If you want share price growth - put the money to good work and grow the business in the long term that's the only way
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.
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.
speedsgh: Numis sees ‘deep value’ in Standard Life Aberdeen - HTTP:// 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.
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
Your Recent History
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:20190522 20:39:45