Unilever Share Discussion Threads

[ygor705] 02/10/2018 18:01

A change in the law re the treatment of nominee holdings for voting purposes would easily sort out problems such as this Unilever debacle. The platforms have all the information that is required as to total votes cast and number of shareholders saying yes and no. THE COMPANIES ACTS NEED UPDATING AND QUICKLY. After all, we are supposed to be living in a democracy.

[irenekent] 02/10/2018 16:37

Losos, I use HL when I can't buy direct from the registrars which is often the cheapest option. I have noticed that HL on occasions can be cheaper depending on the trade. I feel that this whole matter of shareholders being disenfranchised of their rights is coming into wider public notice as a result of the growing publicity given to the Unilever shambles and hopefully the government will be forced to take speed action to sort this mess out. One lives in hope.

[mozy123] 02/10/2018 15:55

Job curtis of CTY will be voting against.

[losos] 02/10/2018 15:41

irenekent - Hello, hope you are well, you said "Divs are reinvested at minimal cost"

Some of those brokers I mentioned in my last post also did auto divi re-investment but after many years I came to the conclusion it was better to hold the divis in cash and time any purchase at what I think is a better price.

Like marksp2011 has said there is also a lot 'bumph' that seems to find it's way to you as a direct shareholder. That made me nervous and often annoyed me because there was no way I would be interested in most of it and the danger from having ones personal details so widely known is becomming more and more of a worry.

Still at the end of the day one does what one feels happiest with, I am extremely happy with Hargreaves Lansdown, I have no shares in HL nor do I have any personal or commercial connection, I just find they provide a good service at a fair price.

[irenekent] 02/10/2018 10:36

Losos.
Once you hold paper certificates you are on the company's shareholder register. All communications re voting, AGMs, share splits, rights issues, etc. come direct to you and shouldn't involve a broker. Thus no fees. I have traded this way for over 25yrs and despite the high commission charges on buying and selling I calculate I've saved a fortune in platform fees, compliance fees, re-investment of divs fees and the many other fees that are charged. Divs are reinvested at minimal cost or sent direct to my bank account at no cost and on the day of payment. All you need to do is make sure your contact details are up to date. I've moved three times in the UK within this period with no problems. I must confess that I rarely sell so I'm only paying on the way in as a rule.

[bluemango] 02/10/2018 09:03

If your shares are held via Hargreaves Lansdown, you have until 23 October to vote, they've made it really easy to vote online; simply click on the blue icon next to your Unilever shares on your portfolio, and follow the simple instructions.

I urge private shareholders to resist the usual apathy in these situations, and exercise your right to vote NO. They all count! And with the support of these major institutions such as Aviva and Shroders we really could win this.

[bluemango] 02/10/2018 08:43

Excellent news: Shroders to join vote against!

Another top shareholder of consumer giant Unilever has said it will vote down the company's plans to relocate its headquarters to the Netherlands.

Asset management firm Schroders joined a growing list of investors who have vowed to reject Unilever's plan.

In September, Aviva said the same thing, while top 10 shareholder Legal & General Investment Management last Friday said it would also oppose the move.

[rhubarbcrumble] 01/10/2018 19:36

Mozy123.

Thanks for correcting me.

[losos] 01/10/2018 18:09

IreneKent - "I see Inv. Chronic. today BearBull says vote no because of the Dutch 15% withholding tax on dividends."

So can I assume that if I was a holder of the Dutch Unilever my dividends would be less 15% and then if they were paid into a NON ISA account and my income was plus £2K (In 2019/20 tax year) they would be taxed again by HMRC

I am pleased to have a nominee account now because when we lived abroad documents had to be forwarded on to me and several times arrived too late for me to make a decision and return. I lost out big time as well when my then broker made a mistake with one form (Ommitted to fill in a box at the top right) it was over Easter and the delay in getting it sorted meant the action I choose didn't get to the registrars in time. I have used six brokers and all except my current ones (Who operate my nominee account) have made mistakes and charged excessive commissions, I would never go back to using them and frankly neither would I want go back to paper share certificates either.

That is just my personal view, if you have always lived where you are now, don't have more than say 10 or 15 holdings, and have the time to deal with all the documentation then maybe a nominee account is not for you.

I have held ULVR for 8 years but sold out but may return when all this residency 'business' is sorted.

[topvest] 28/9/2018 18:18

This looks a bit like the Aviva situation. The directors are acting poorly.

[zho] 28/9/2018 13:42

“Our aim is to give you all the tools, information and support you need to venture into the world of investing,” says the blurb on Hargreaves Lansdown’s website. Customers who hold shares in Unilever via the investment platform may beg to differ.

Hargreaves’ email to Unilever shareholders, before the big “go Dutch” vote next month, omitted a crucial piece of information – the fact that, for their vote to count in the possibly crucial “majority in number” tally, private shareholders need to get their shares registered in certified form, in the jargon.

The “majority in number” test, remember, is the poll in which each shareholder gets one vote, whether they own 100 shares or 100,000. It is different from the conventional vote that counts the pure numbers of shares.

The certification problem is this: the 20,000 people who hold Unilever shares via Hargreaves fall under nominee arrangements. For the “majority in number” poll, they will be pooled within Hargreaves Nominees Ltd, which gets only one vote. But it’s easy to remove oneself from the pool by asking for a certified shareholding, albeit Hargreaves will charge a fee.

So you would think Hargreaves would shout loudly about this important technical detail. After all, it’s supposed to be a champion of private investors and the Unilever vote is rare chance for small shareholders to make a difference. But the platform did not mention the voting wrinkle in its email. It just advertised its normal pooled voting service, which is ideal most of the time – just not on this occasion.

Hargreaves agrees it failed to be explicit. For customers who feel aggrieved, it suggests buying a single certified share to get full bang for voting buck. That is good advice that should have been given earlier and explicitly.

[mozy123] 28/9/2018 13:07

I have loads of foreign shares in my ISA

hxxps://citywire.co.uk/money/share-centre-give-our-investors-say-in-unilever-move/a1159754?ref=citywire-money-latest-news-list

[rhubarbcrumble] 28/9/2018 13:06

I would think that if the co delists from LSE and UK leaves Europe, ULVR will no longer qualify for ISAs, as a foreign share, although I may be mistaken about this.

I have voted against.

DYOR.

[irenekent] 28/9/2018 10:14

A very good reason for holding paper certificates and being on a company's share register. Platforms are a huge swindle. I see Inv. Chronic. today BearBull says vote no because of the Dutch 15% withholding tax on dividends.

[mozy123] 28/9/2018 08:59

So if the nominee is only 1 vote, they will vote the answer that the majority of nominee holders vote for weighted for number of shares?

[ygor705] 28/9/2018 07:14

Todays Times article covers the position of a nominee under the Companies Act ie 1 nominee counts as 1vote. Thus retail investors are yet again being screwed by out-of-date legislation. It is about time our politicians did the job they were elected to do and serve the wider interests of the public.

[ygor705] 26/9/2018 17:37

I spoke to Hargreaves Lansdowne this morning to clarify the comment in The Times article at the weekend suggesting that platforms only count as one individual for voting purposes. Made it quite clear that, if true, this was a totally unsatisfactory situation for the Unilever vote. They have promised to review the situation and come back to me but I would urge others to put pressure on their platform managers.

[zho] 26/9/2018 14:16

Unilever’s board is clearly rattled. You could hear its finance director, Graeme Pitkethly, on the Today programme defending the corporate plan to head to the Netherlands, and you could read the chairman Marijn Dekkers’ opinion piece in the Telegraph. These public pleas wouldn’t be necessary if the lobbying campaign – more than 200 meetings with investors over the past six months, says Dekkers – had guaranteed the “huge support” the company claims before next month’s vote.

[ygor705] 26/9/2018 08:16

With the noise now coming out of Unilever's Head Office promoting the Dutch transfer, things must be looking up for the NO vote. This is an arrogant Board of Directors who are, in my view, failing to disclose to UK shareholders the real reasons for the migration. VOTE NO.

[sharesoc] 24/9/2018 12:38

UKSA and ShareSoc Joint Recommendations for Voting re Unilever Resolutions

[cheshire pete] 23/9/2018 09:37

Likewise broadgreen and marksp2011 I voted against, easy too with Hargreaves Lansdown. Like AJ Bell platform though.
Read in Times yesterday that individual shareholders have as much clout as the big institutions because of the way the vote is structured. Spread the word.

[marksp2011] 20/9/2018 18:49

That is my 519 "No" votes with AJ Bell.

I think we will win this one and the share price will rocket.

[broadgreen] 20/9/2018 17:42

Have just voted (against) for my miniscule holding with AJ Bell, who have made it very easy to do. Am hoping Selftrade, where I have a few more, will follow suit.