Standard Life 2000 vs 2006: why did the turnout grow?

Back in 2000, when Standard Life last polled members on whether they wanted their insurer to demutualise, the potential windfalls were far bigger than today. But members then did as the board said, and voted against the float.

This time round, of course, the board has urged members to vote FOR demutualisation - and they have again duly done as they are told, and overwhelmingly supported the float.

What interests me is the change in turnout. When there was MORE money at stake, the turnout in 2000 was lower - around 50 per cent of members. This time round, much to the delight of Standard boss Sandy Crombie, over 65 per cent of qualifying members voted. That's one of the biggest ever turnouts in a corporate ballot.

So why the increase? I've really no idea - but here are a few stabs:

1: Those who supported demutualisation last time round were annoyed at having lost their windfalls - so they made sure to vote in favour this time, and encouraged everyone else they knew to do so too

2: The evolution of online chatrooms and blogs in the past six years might have helped spread the word and bump up numbers

3: Most important of all, I reckon, is that this time round members were being encouraged to vote by the company through its official literature. It's quite amazing, given the circumstances, but it appears that Standard's policyholders still hold the company and its management in sufficient respect to listen and obey. Last time round, the turnout was lower because policyholders were getting mixed messages. On the one hand, the carpetbaggers were urging them to cash in their chips and vote for a float, while on the other the company's management was telling them to keep the status quo. The result was that policyholders were confused and so fewer voted. This time, however, the board was urging them both to vote and to vote for the float. Bingo.

The overall conclusion from this, as I see it, is rather depressing. It suggests that most policyholders (or small shareholders of a Plc, for that matter) are predisposed to take the board's word as gospel and vote as directed.

Any other thoughts on the matter?

- Richard Dyson, Financial Mail on Sunday

Useful links

Everything you need to know about Standard Life's stock market float -www.thisismoney.co.uk/standardlife

BLOG POST: How big is YOUR Standard Life windfall?

BLOG POST: Standard Life's new era of spin

(How to post a comment)

Comments

[miriam hall]

In my opinion the reason that so many policyholders turned out to vote yes to demutualisation was that originally the general idea among them was to get out of a bad job and cut losses. To vote yes, take the windfall, sell the shares when they peak (which they will) and get out of the policy asap.

However Standard Life is looking strong, the shares may be worth hanging on to in the long term and policies are secured so maybe the policyholders are just feeling that more optimistic. I would like to point out that the windfall is not a gift but is a mere sop in lieu of the profits that I have not received for holding this policy which incidentally is yielding a paltry 2% this year. As far as I`m concerned its bye bye Standard Life.