The Lemon Fool

Bouleversee wrote:I simply don't have time to read through all this thread but I am aware of Unilever's intentions and of the effective disenfranchisement of holders via platforms/nominee accounts, which is disgraceful as most shares are held in this way these days. Time the law caught up. What I am not clear about is whether a fund with a huge holding of Unilever (or any other company seeking approval of something) also only has one vote or whether in their case there is any relationship to the number of shares they hold in that company. Does anyone know?

FWIW my shares are held by IWeb and I haven't had a word from them about Unilever's plans to go Dutch or any notification of the meeting or invitation to vote. I have two holdings, one in an ISA and one in a dealing account.

Hi Bouleversee,

I also hold my Unilever with iWeb, and I got a notification. If you log in to your ISA and go to the 'Corporate Actions' it should be in there dated 13th September. It might be under the 'History' option if you've already viewed it. It's just for info though - there was no voting option given.

re. number of votes - you should go back and look at Gengulphus's posts - there are two votes - one based on number of shares and one based on number of holders, which is why private investors have more influence than normal.

StepOne

Thanks, Dod. I was aware of the certification suggestion but it is not practical and not possible within an ISA. I can't agree about the shortcomings of the nominee system; I think it is the shortcomings of the lawmakers who need to get with the digital age. I do hold some shares in certificated form but there are quite a few shortcomings connected with them, notably possible tax liability and inability to do a quick sale other than pay the registrar's much higher fees or ditto to a stockbroker who doesn't insist on having the certificate first and I no longer have one of those. There are, of course, also advantages, especially re gifting.

Boulerversee. There are shortcomings with the nominee system and of course benefits. Some of the shortcomings can be addressed, as you say by identifying individual underlying holdings in a nominee account/platform and then give these holdings the full shareholder rights. But currently that is not even a starter as far as I can see. Then there is the question of security a la Beaufort. The ease of trading is of course usually regarded as a benefit.

Being basically LTBH, I am much less concerned about that than I am with shareholder rights and security. I fortunately hold my Unilever shares in certificated form for now, but if the proposals go through, they will be held by nominees whether I like it or not unless I elect to become an Excluded Shareholder with all the problems which will apparently arise if I want to sell.

StepOne, I covered the point about the two votes in my brief response to Boulerversee.

Dod

Article in BBC website stating HQ move cancelled. Needs confirmation...

I can’t post links. It’s on the front page of news

Juan.

JuanDB wrote:Article in BBC website stating HQ move cancelled. Needs confirmation...

I can’t post links. It’s on the front page of news

Juan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45756738

Shares moving broadly in line with the FTSE100, so looks like a "non-event".

OK, so now what are HYPers supposed to talk about?

VRD

I suspect from the absence of replies that everyone knows already, but if only to help anyone who reads this thread later: the story continues at viewtopic.php?f=15&t=14052.

Gengulphus

Daily Mail as well

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ssure.html