Statement from the Board of Unilever

[idpickering]

London/Rotterdam, 5 October 2018. The Unilever Board has today decided to withdraw its proposal to simplify Unilever's dual-headed legal structure.

In developing the proposal, the Board was guided by the opportunity to unlock value for our shareholders by creating a stronger, simpler and more competitive Unilever that is better positioned for long-term success.

We have had an extensive period of engagement with shareholders and have received widespread support for the principle behind simplification. However, we recognise that the proposal has not received support from a significant group of shareholders and therefore consider it appropriate to withdraw.

Marijn Dekkers, Chairman, said: "Unilever has built a long track record of consistent and competitive performance. The Board continues to believe that simplifying our dual-headed structure would, over time, provide opportunities to further accelerate value creation and serve the best long-term interests of Unilever.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/unilever- ... 00030963D/

[Dod101]

That is the best news for some time. Victory for common sense and egg on the faces of the Unilever management I am afraid. They failed to respect the feelings of us Brits.

Glad I had not made arrangements to go to the meetings in London. So much for the 'consulting with the major shareholders'. So they are good at selling soap powders and magnum but not much good at investor relations.

Hooray.

Dod

[idpickering]

That is the best news for some time. Victory for common sense and egg on the faces of the Unilever management I am afraid. They failed to respect the feelings of us Brits.

Glad I had not made arrangements to go to the meetings in London. So much for the 'consulting with the major shareholders'. So they are good at selling soap powders and magnum but not much good at investor relations.

Hooray.

Dod

Agreed Dod, but reading the above quote it's like they want to change the structure still, but more slowly maybe? Be interesting to see how this plays out. Watch for the jump in sp on market opening too I suspect.

Ian.

[Dod101]

They could change the structure and I am not against that, but do a Shell. Incorporate in London and manage from the Netherlands. I think had they offered that they would have been home and dry. Why would the index funds vote for the proposals as they stood? Why did no one think of that? The proposals were arrogant without any discussion about how they concluded what they did; in other words they made no very strong case for their conclusions.

What has this cost? Will any heads roll?

Dod

[OZYU]

They could change the structure and I am not against that, but do a Shell. Incorporate in London and manage from the Netherlands. I think had they offered that they would have been home and dry. Why would the index funds vote for the proposals as they stood? Why did no one think of that? The proposals were arrogant without any discussion about how they concluded what they did; in other words they made no very strong case for their conclusions.

What has this cost? Will any heads roll?

Dod

It has cost a great deal of properly focussed time by Management to develop the business. They need to get back to that, which is what matters.

Ozyu

[TUK020]

Agreed Dod, but reading the above quote it's like they want to change the structure still, but more slowly maybe? Be interesting to see how this plays out. Watch for the jump in sp on market opening too I suspect.

Ian.

Probably received input from major shareholders = wait until Dutch have actually delivered on scrapping withholding tax, and then move.

[Arborbridge]

Amazing how they say they manage to convince themselves that they had widespread support, at the same time as doing a U-turn owing to lack of support. They screwed up, but don't want to say so. No heads won't roll, because they still believe they are in-step, and the rest of us are out-of-step.

This is the classic response of politicians who apologise without actually apologising.
They haven't changed their minds at all, think they are correct whatever anyone else says: they will be back.




Arb.

[Darka]

Good news, but are all of those that sold recently to avoid this complication now going to buy back in?

It seems to me that it's becoming more common for Fools (even more experiences ones who should know better) to jump ship at the first sign of trouble, whatever happened to having a "portfolio" of shares for the long term, some go up, some go down but it's the portfolio that matters (unless you have a Carillion of course)...

[idpickering]

They haven't changed their minds at all, think they are correct whatever anyone else says: they will be back.

Arb.

Along with a revised dumb-ass plan I guess.

Ian.

[idpickering]

Good news, but are all of those that sold recently to avoid this complication now going to buy back in?

It seems to me that it's becoming more common for Fools (even more experiences ones who should know better) to jump ship at the first sign of trouble, whatever happened to having a "portfolio" of shares for the long term, some go up, some go down but it's the portfolio that matters (unless you have a Carillion of course)...

An interesting point Darka. I don't mind admitting that I am one of those to whom you rightly refer, and should know better. I'm only human though. As to buying back in, I may well do so, we'll see.

Ian.

[Darka]

I think everyone (myself included) has been affected by events such as Carillion and am finding it harder to trust the portfolio.

I'm not adverse to selling of course but I do wonder if we're all just a little bit nervous about the market.

[NeilW]

I suspect the sense that those with money and power do whatever they like regardless of whether those who have the notional votes have requested it is somewhat heightened at the moment.

The old idea that cutting a dividend was career suicide in UK corporates seems to have evaporated over the last ten years.

[moorfield]

A small part of me wants to believe the board read that epic thread here on LF and thought to themselves, "You know what, let's ..."

They could change the structure and I am not against that, but do a Shell. Incorporate in London and manage from the Netherlands.

Yes nothing to stop them moving more operations, and jobs, that way ...

[idpickering]

Up a touch on market opening, 1.3%. I thought it'd be more, but what do I know?

Ian.

[Walrus]

Good news, but are all of those that sold recently to avoid this complication now going to buy back in?

It seems to me that it's becoming more common for Fools (even more experiences ones who should know better) to jump ship at the first sign of trouble, whatever happened to having a "portfolio" of shares for the long term, some go up, some go down but it's the portfolio that matters (unless you have a Carillion of course)...

An interesting point Darka. I don't mind admitting that I am one of those to whom you rightly refer, and should know better. I'm only human though. As to buying back in, I may well do so, we'll see.

Ian.

I am back in 3.5% return from luck in 2 days. But I agree with your sentiment Darka

[Dod101]

I suspect the sense that those with money and power do whatever they like regardless of whether those who have the notional votes have requested it is somewhat heightened at the moment.

The old idea that cutting a dividend was career suicide in UK corporates seems to have evaporated over the last ten years.

Cutting the dividend? What has that got to do with Unilever? They were probably carried away with the fact that the Chairman and the CEO are both Dutch and had little input from the British side. In fact apart from the Finance Director most of the others are non Brits and non Dutch so they failed for some reason to appreciate that this is an Anglo Dutch company. Fundamentally they failed to appreciate that even apart from index funds, a lot of funds have a mandate for FTSE350 shares only. Why would these funds vote in favour of selling their shares (and maybe not at a time of their choosing?

Why anyone should have been nervous of this proposal beats me. Unilever is one of the better shares in the FTSE100 and would still have been a great share if incorporated in the Netherlands. What on earth has Carillion got to do with it?

Dod

[Bouleversee]

I didn't sell because I thought there was a strong possibility their proposals would not go through. However, I'm not sure I'd be rushing to buy at the moment. I think people are becoming more cost conscious and tending to go for own brands rather than premium products. TBH I have done that for a long time. I shall hold and see what their results are in the future. This ill conceived and poorly thought through exercise must have cost them a pretty penny and fund managers might be wary of adding though it's unlikely that a scheme which would affect them so adversely would be proposed again.

[richfool]

Now down 0.90% If it drops back more it may be worth a top up?

[Arborbridge]

Good news, but are all of those that sold recently to avoid this complication now going to buy back in?

It seems to me that it's becoming more common for Fools (even more experiences ones who should know better) to jump ship at the first sign of trouble, whatever happened to having a "portfolio" of shares for the long term, some go up, some go down but it's the portfolio that matters (unless you have a Carillion of course)...

Not, as far as I can tell, from my point of view. I wrote that I wouldn't be selling ULVR. not until at some future time it became unattractive - and I haven't.

Unlike Rothschild, who said he always sells too soon, I am a HYPer and always sell too late
If the market falls, I sit on my hands, or buy.

I can't say I never sell - and the sells do mount up when you look back, despite one's best intentions. My last complete sell out was Marks, but only after several years of cogitating on the matter.
But then, one notes there have been sell offs for Interserve and Carillion (too late!) and before that in August 2017, Go-ahead Group. So even for someone fairly relaxed about it, I've had four in just over a year - I think it's been a rather poor year in that respect.

I'm not twitchy, I'm not Doris, but somewhere in between.


Arb.

[pyad]

This is both a climb down and a cock up by ULVR.

As I wrote on the other thread, the whole deal was irrelevant to me one way or the other but to see such a big company ultimately humiliated by malcontent shareholders is extremely rare because normally they would have gotten advance agreement from major holders before going ahead formally. It's incompetent that they appeared not to have done so, or done so insufficiently.

I won't spare a thought for those who held ULVR and sold out just because they didn't like the proposed reorganisation. Yet again doing nothing has paid off.