Standard Life Aberdeen Results Part 1 and 2 of 8!

[idpickering]

Resilient performance against a challenging industry backdrop and weak investor sentiment

· Profit from continuing operations broadly flat at £650m

· Net outflows continued but were concentrated in a small number of strategies

· Broad demand for our wider product suite with gross inflows up to £75.2bn (2017: £72.4bn)

· Ahead of schedule in delivering cost efficiencies of at least £350m with actions already taken to deliver £175m of these savings

· Focus on financial discipline resulting in a further reduction in expenses of £56m during the year

· Offer for sale of up to 4.93% of HDFC Life with expected proceeds of c£0.4bn1

· Final dividend unchanged - we intend to maintain the dividend per share at the 2018 level during the period of transformation

This from part 2;

Proposed dividend

Having reflected on all the above, your Board is proposing a final dividend of 14.3p, the same amount as was paid at this stage last year. Assuming shareholders vote to approve this at the upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM), this would give a total dividend for 2018 of 21.6p, up 1.4% on the year. It is the Board's current intention that the total annual dividend per share should be held at this level while the business is transformed, cost synergies are delivered and future financial performance confirms the sustainability of this level of distribution and provides line of sight to its future growth.

Part 1 - https://www.investegate.co.uk/standard- ... 00096733S/

Part 2 - https://www.investegate.co.uk/standard- ... 00116728S/

[idpickering]

Well received on market opening it seems, with the sp being up3.5%. That did surprise me tbh. I hold, and am likely to top up soon.

Ian.

[SuperCally]

Also from Part 2:
<<<<
The Board is recommending a final dividend for 2018 of 14.3p (2017: 14.3p) per share. Subject to shareholder approval, this will be paid on 21 May 2019 to shareholders on the register at close of business on 12 April 2019. The 2018 final dividend and future dividends will be paid on the lower number of ordinary shares following the share consolidation and buyback.
>>>>

I am coming to terms with the high probability of never knowing what is contained within Parts 3 to 8!

[monabri]

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exc ... 99855.html

"With effect from 13 March, the Board unanimously approved the dissolution of its current co-Chief Executive structure. Keith Skeoch has been appointed sole Chief Executive Officer. Recognising the critical importance of his client facing responsibilities, Martin Gilbert becomes Vice Chairman of Standard Life Aberdeen, Chairman of Aberdeen Standard Investments and will continue to be an Executive Director of the Board"

[idpickering]

Also from Part 2:
<<<<

I am coming to terms with the high probability of never knowing what is contained within Parts 3 to 8!

I hea you. It was tough enough wading through the first two parts!

Ian.

[Dod101]

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/SLA/13999855.html

"With effect from 13 March, the Board unanimously approved the dissolution of its current co-Chief Executive structure. Keith Skeoch has been appointed sole Chief Executive Officer. Recognising the critical importance of his client facing responsibilities, Martin Gilbert becomes Vice Chairman of Standard Life Aberdeen, Chairman of Aberdeen Standard Investments and will continue to be an Executive Director of the Board"

My conclusion from what has been disclosed so far is that it is too early to come to a meaningful forecast for the future business outcome because as they say, the company is in state of transition. The other point is that Douglas Flint has, as I expected, removed the Co CEO structure, not that it will necessarily make much difference because Martin Gilbert is simply being elevated, leaving Skeoch to do the hands on work of actually making the machine work.

Still, it is does not sound like bad news except that they continue to lose AUM.

Dod

[monabri]

This might be of interest to PHNX/SLA shareholders.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/co ... 16283.html

Personally, as a SLA shareholder from 2006 , I would have been happier if they hadn't sold off the Life "Insurance" side of the business....the current business is not what I originally bought into.

(I "compensated" by topping up LGEN and adding Phoenix Gp.)

[Arborbridge]

This might be of interest to PHNX/SLA shareholders.

https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/co ... 16283.html

Personally, as a SLA shareholder from 2006 , I would have been happier if they hadn't sold off the Life "Insurance" side of the business....the current business is not what I originally bought into.

(I "compensated" by topping up LGEN and adding Phoenix Gp.)

Thanks for posting that, some might find it a game changer, but....

Businesses evolve - it happens. I was in the same position with Pearson, but evolution is part of the capitalist scheme. One cannot predict the outcome in any particular case, but one can only trust that overall one wins. I find it difficult to make selling decisions just based on the story having changed - for all I know, it needed to change, and it might even be for the better

Arb.

[Dod101]

I think it goes without saying that the SLA dividend is less than secure otherwise we would not see the yield where it is but there is so much smoke and mirrors at the moment until the business settles down that it is difficult to tell. I think that Phoenix is the better investment which is why I am there and not SLA.

Businesses evolve and we evolve with them but SLA has not so much evolved as reverted to type, that is as it was before the merger with Standard Life.

Dod

[Gengulphus]

Personally, as a SLA shareholder from 2006 , I would have been happier if they hadn't sold off the Life "Insurance" side of the business....the current business is not what I originally bought into.

Whereas I was happier because they sold it off - the aspect of the merger that I least liked was that it made me somewhat overweight in the life insurance sector, since I'd originally been 'doubled up' in the sector with Aviva and Legal & General, and the sale more-or-less undid that cause of unhappiness for me...

Basically, directors can't please every shareholder with everything that they do - nor even every HYPer shareholder!

Gengulphus

[Gengulphus]

Businesses evolve and we evolve with them but SLA has not so much evolved as reverted to type, that is as it was before the merger with Standard Life.

Well, that depends on whether you came into it from Standard Life or from Aberdeen Asset Management - and it's pretty clear that there are HYPers around here in both camps (*). If from Standard Life, it's evolved; if from Aberdeen Asset Management, it's reverted to type - so for almost all practical purposes, which it's done is a subjective matter, not an objective one.

The only objective way of deciding the matter that I'm aware of is a technicality: Standard Life Aberdeen is the same company (number SC286832) as Standard Life, having only changed its name, and not the same company as Aberdeen Asset Management (number SC082015) - the links are to the Companies House records for the companies. But the only practical purpose I know of for which that's still relevant is that if you had a certificated holding in one of the original companies, your old share certificate would have become invalid and you would have received a new certificate during the merger if it was Aberdeen Asset Management, but if it was Standard Life, your old share certificate will probably have remained valid. In essence, the company number on a share certificate is what identifies the company, while the name on the certificate only describes the company as it was when the certificate was issued.

So if there's an objective answer, it's that the company has evolved and not reverted to type - but that answer is only really relevant for a very limited purpose and for a minority of shareholders. Otherwise, it's a subjective answer that depends on the history of the HYPer's holding.

(*) And probably also some in the "both" and "neither" camps.

Gengulphus

[Dod101]

Yes I know that Standard Life Aberdeen is technically the old Standard Life but I daresay that most investors, of which I am not one in either SLA or the old Standard Life, see the combined operation as Aberdeen in a new guise and indeed that is what the management appear to be striving for, so I think many would agree with me that it is 'reverting to type'. My remark however was intended as a not too serious response to Arb's and was not intended to be an illustration of where SLA is now or where it came from.

Dod

[Gengulphus]

... My remark however was intended as a not too serious response to Arb's and was not intended to be an illustration of where SLA is now or where it came from.

Saying something is reverting to type is a comment on where it is now and where it came from, basically saying they're the same or similar. If you didn't intend that and said it anyway, any resulting misunderstanding is not caused by me.

Gengulphus