DO YOU like Standard Life? There was a time when the insurer’s 2.6 million with-profits investors would have answered a resounding “yes” to this question. The typical response today would be: “Not much but I’d like to change my mind.” We would all prefer to think well of the people who take care of our long-term savings, but Standard Life has not made this easy — even for the most forbearing investors. The errors and omissions of the company ’s close-knit and overconfident past management are hard to forgive, some may say unpardonable.

In 2002, when stock markets were falling and rival insurers were seeking safer havens, stuck-up Standard Life thought it knew best. The damage caused by this piece of poor judgment was a factor leading to last year’s disposal of £7.5 billion in shares, a move designed to bolster the £35 billion with-profits fund. Unfortunately, the subsequent surge in share prices meant that the fund was deprived of about £1.3 billion in gains.

The resentment inspired by such events may be difficult to overcome. But, under its present board, Standard Life is making amends. The company said this week that sales are increasing in the UK and worldwide. This suggests that a higher-than-expected price tag could be put on the company when it floats on the stock market next year.

It is true that Standard Life’s decision to shed its once-cherished mutual status is yet another consequence of past board blunders: the men who most set store by mutuality ensured its ending by their actions. A tragedy? Not quite. Customers should try to view the demutualisation in a positive light and not because the windfalls on offer will be bounteous. Payouts could average as much as £2,000 apiece for the with-profits investors, who are Standard Life’s owner members.

But these individuals should focus more on the performance of their investments: at present, returns are middling. Superior maturity values were once the main reason to like Standard Life. Investors must hope that the scrutiny of the stock market brings a new rigour to the business, encouraging renewed effort in the investment department. That’s what we’d like to see.

A zero credit card can still be a hero despite its bad image

THE zero per cent credit card has recently acquired a bad-boy reputation. Its detractors claim that this false flexible friend will lure you further into debt, while appearing to solve your problems. Transferring balances from an expensive credit card to a card with a zero per cent introductory rate should be the first step on the road to financial righteousness. You can repay your borrowings at a lower cost and leave debt behind. However, too many people are switching their balances serially from card to card, clearing none of their debt. Others are lulled into a false sense of security and embark on a fresh round of spending.

But the denigration of the zero per cent credit card has been overdone. For the individual resolved to move on from his or her indebted state, this card can be a boon. Unfortunately, however, it is becoming harder to find a company that does not impose a fee on transferred balances. Card companies wish to deter serial switchers — some of whom invest cash borrowed on their zero per cent cards. If you have not yet heard a person boast that they have deposited the money in a high interest account, or in Premium Bonds, you will. If wittily told, it can be a diverting tale, but mostly this is not the case. By the way, these people call themselves “stoozers”.

Zero per cent cards without a transfer fee may be hard to find but a few are still around. At Abbey you can enjoy a nine-month, interest-free holiday without paying a charge Thereafter, an expensive standard interest rate of 15.9 per cent applies — an incentive to clear every penny you owe. Sainsbury’s Bank is now offering a fee-free card with a 5.9 per cent lifetime rate for transfers. This rate may be comparable to a best-buy personal loan, but choosing this card is an admission of defeat, another way of saying that you will never be able to clear your debts.