Unilever Share Discussion Threads

[essentialinvestor] 07/10/2018 11:50

The very last development we want is an acquisition spree.
In beauty they have bought multiple niche brands like dermalogica,
which have struggled to grow. Trying to ignite some growth in this
category would be a good place to start.


Net debt is already over £20 Billion.

[ygor705] 07/10/2018 11:30

The recent newspaper column inches devoted to the Unilever vote story is overwhelming and almost universally hostile to the Board. As night follows day this will almost certainly put Unilever into play. Personally, I am not quite sure whether I prefer this prospect or a new board embarking on a potentially risky spending spree!

[essentialinvestor] 06/10/2018 18:07

Amazon to double down on own label brands, reports this weekend.
Not surprises there.

[tbr25] 05/10/2018 17:59

Amazing result. Retiring boss has lost all credabilty. It was all a reaction to US takeover attempt and wanting to retrench to Dutch jurisdiction that gives enhanced ( xenophobic ) protection from hostile takeover that may generate enhanced shareholder value.
.

[topvest] 05/10/2018 17:49

Great news for the UK stock market. Losing Unilever from the FTSE 100 would have been a regressive step. The Board needs to take a long hard look on why they were recommending something that wasn’t in the interests of shareholders as a whole. That’s Aviva and Unilever in a matter of months that have made enormous self inflicted errors of judgement.

[marksp2011] 05/10/2018 17:44

There was no "Victory for Individual Shareholders". The majority of PIs are on platforms so will probably have counted for about 20 in total

yes your nominee may be kind enough to aggregate all the votes for people responding on their platform but that was still only one holder, the nominee

We were lucky, as individual shareholders we were disenfranchised and continue to be so.

[essentialinvestor] 05/10/2018 14:19

I'm guessing BlackRock must have been against.

[losos] 05/10/2018 12:33

Pejaten - Thanks for the update, it's been 20 years since I looked out at the Blackfriars building from my bus on the way home to the country at the end of each week.

You are absolutely right, this proposed move of HQ was never about headcount, it may have been about tax, or ego, but most likely 'takeover proofing' (Not sure if that is the correct terminolgy)

Let us hope that this has shown that the board do listen to their shareholders (Well the larger ones anyway) The very best way to avoid an unwelcome takeover is surely to keep all your shareholders informed and updated in a regular way.

There will always be the likes of Kraft lerking in the background but the ULVR board should not fear them if they are doing a good job and they keep talking to their shareholders.

As many have said above it would be nice if the board could engage a bit more with all their small shareholders who do (In total) represent an important factor.

[pejaten] 05/10/2018 10:18

Ha ha. Actually UK head office is in Leatherhead, personally I doubt they will sell the HO. Must tell you that most employees whether European or not far prefer to be located in UK than the port city of Rotterdam, so I cannot see massive shifts to there. You can argue that this move was more around Paul Polman being Dutch, or his ego, to make UNILEVER takeover proof or to reduce tax besides the stated reasons. Do not think it was ever about reducing people even further than is being done already.

[losos] 05/10/2018 09:36

irenekent - London head office will have to stay but I'm betting it will be a lot smaller in future years. Probably sell that big office near Blackfriars and move out to Romford or some other less 'posh' place haha.

[irenekent] 05/10/2018 08:08

Polman's judgement is seriously called into question and indeed that of the rest of the board. I wonder if the Marmite will still go to Rotterdam with the rest of the food division; and what about the London head office?

[mtsblogs] 05/10/2018 08:07

Should resign.

[spoole5] 05/10/2018 07:50

Bid coming now!

[ianood] 05/10/2018 07:46

Resignations required

[irenekent] 05/10/2018 07:41

Yipeeeeeeeeee!

[capercaillie] 05/10/2018 07:03

Board pull the Dutch move. Welcome news.

[essentialinvestor] 04/10/2018 15:01

Anyone give a TA view here?. Thanks.

[losos] 03/10/2018 16:45

irenekent - "hopefully the government will be forced to take speedy action to sort this mess out. One lives in hope."

One does indeed 'live in hope' haha. I agree with you and others that this move is not good for UK shareholders and also agree that ALL small shareholders should have more of a voice on company boards.

Just to clarify, I'm not happy about the ULVR proposals either. It just so happens that for various reasons I needed to move my ULVR holding into my ISA. I couldn't do all of that in one tax year and anyway I thought the share price would drop if the proposals were voted through.

So I sold, the share price has dropped, and I'm sort of watching from the sidelines for now. It's beginning to look like the vote may go against the board, in which case (If I'm lucky) I may be able to buy back part of my holding in my ISA and even make a few quid haha.

[irenekent] 03/10/2018 16:30

The directors should withdraw this proposal before it goes to the ballot. It is pretty obvious that in the UK there is a wall of opposition to this which will not go away, even if the vote is won by the board. It appears that the directors thought they could take advantage of the arcane practises in the UK to win the vote without anyone realising what was happening. The government should immediately act to change the law and demand that the vote is cancelled until all shareholders can have a vote.

[ygor705] 03/10/2018 15:58

The article by Alistair Osborne in The Times this morning shines a spotlight on just how big a stunt the Unilever Directors are trying to pull on this vote. Out of 36,000 retail investors around 23000 are on the Hargreaves platform and around 3000 are on A J Bells. This means that 23000 retail investors will show up as just 2 in Unilever's ballot. THIS IS AN ABSOLUTE DISGRACE AND MORE SUITED TO THE VOTING PRACTICES OF A BANANA REPUBLIC THAN A PREVIOUSLY RESPECTED FTSE 100 COMPANY. The conduct of this vote is contrary to every principle espoused by William Lever. Every institutional investor should now vote against this proposal and send a clear message to every other set of Directors who seek to disenfranchise their own shareholders.

[mtsblogs] 03/10/2018 12:45

With Halifax Share Dealing, you should have received ballots by ordinary post. Mine have not arrived and I've voted over the phone. Support guys were familiar with this proposed "optimisation" and called it a "hot topic" where customers expressed "strong feelings" on the subject. This is good news - very likely the proposal will be rejected, and with good numbers, suggesting management should go.

[cellibomb] 02/10/2018 19:17

Hi everyone, not generally one to post but been following this thread since the whole proposed move to the Netherlands came to light.I checked with ii about their intentions to let retail investors vote on the matter and they came back with the following:"I had to clarify an issue with this particular vote with Unilever's registrar. All II clients can vote on this matter (as well as on the majority of UK equity, and certain non-UK listed company meetings). Please be advised that we offer a voting service which can be accessed on your online account (via the Portfolio and Voting Mailbox menus - a list of meetings you are able to vote on should populate within a day or so of registering for the service)."Hope this is useful to some!Thanks