Unilever AGM

[Dod1010]

I have just returned from the Unilever AGM. It was well attended although I would not like to guess how many were there.

The first thing that struck me was a how big a company it is compared to say the biggest investment trust, which is the usual AGM I attend. They are obviously well versed in fielding awkward questions from the likes of Amnesty International about poor, apparently downtrodden, farmers in Indonesia!

My main concern was whether the buyback and dividend increase was really realistic and I think I am reassured because they are still a conservative company by any standard.

Of interest to some maybe. 60% of their sales are in emerging markets with Home and Personal Care by far the biggest division at 40% of sales.

They also said that over the last 30 years, £1 in Unilever has become £68; a FTSE100 tracker would have returned £17. If that is the case it does say much for the other constituents.

There were as usual at AGMs very few really penetrating questions and so to that extent we are relying on pressure coming from institutional investors behind the scenes. However the Chairman did allow a generous 1 1/2 hours or so for questions.

I think as shareholders we should take an interest by attending AGMs but as more and more shares are held in nominees, I imagine they will inevitably become more poorly attended.

[ian56]

Thank you for posting this Dod.

I am still adding to my HYP, am underweight in Unilever and would like to add more but the price is a little heady at the moment (or maybe it isn't). My overall portfolio forecast yield is quite healthy at 5.3% currently so maybe I should be prepared to let that come down a bit.

Ian

[77ss]

Thank you for posting this Dod.

I am still adding to my HYP, am underweight in Unilever and would like to add more but the price is a little heady at the moment (or maybe it isn't). My overall portfolio forecast yield is quite healthy at 5.3% currently so maybe I should be prepared to let that come down a bit.

Ian

Always tricky, when a share price has risen strongly. But if you wait until the price comes down, you may find yourself waiting a long time. Unless you are prepared to sit on your cash, waiting for the next market crash - but I should imagine that that applies to pretty well all shares.

I last topped up at 3532p. The share price promptly sank by over 10% - until rescued by the Kraft offer - one never knows what tomorrow will bring! I suspect that Unilever's management will be very keen to show that their dismissive rejection of Kraft's offer was fully justified.

For a long term investment ULVR still looks good to me - I'm a bit overweight at 126% of median, so don't intend to add - but neither am I remotely contemplating top-slicing.

[Arborbridge]

But if you wait until the price comes down, you may find yourself

...thinking "OMG, the price has come down - perhaps there's something wrong with the company!"

Arb.

[ADrunkenMarcus]

Thanks for the report from the AGM. The thirty year performance stats are very impressive and I have other data showing ULVR handily beat the MSCI World Index, too.

ULVR is a core holding for me and I started my last reporting year with about 8 percent of my dividend growth portfolio invested in the company, so it is one of my top holdings in terms of size and I have a high exposure. At present, the weighing has come down to 7.9 percent (I haven't made any transactions) but I am all the more pleased with it in that the capital value of this portfolio has risen about 35 percent during the period. Unilever is one of the holdings that has, broadly, managed to keep its share constant while other holdings have shrunk significantly as a proportion. Needless to say I don't expect this will happen every year!

Best wishes


Mark.

[Gengulphus]

I think as shareholders we should take an interest by attending AGMs but as more and more shares are held in nominees, I imagine they will inevitably become more poorly attended.

Frankly, they've been poorly attended for a very long time now, and while the nominee issue contributes to that poor attendance, I don't think it's the major contributor. That's the sheer practical inconvenience: attending an AGM typically involves taking time off work and spending both time and money travelling to wherever it happens to be being held. Typically rather than always, of course - there are cases such as retirees who happen to live close to the AGM venue, but they're rare and won't contribute much to attendance. The majority of small shareholders will find it anything from pretty inconvenient to downright prohibitive to arrange to attend the AGM...

Gengulphus

[Dod1010]

I don't disagree with your observations, Gengulphus although the HSBC one had a very good attendance at over 300. Unilever has two AGMs of course, because of its dual structure and that would certainly count for some of the shortfall.

AGMs have for as long as I have been attending them been mostly made up of retirees but we also have professional stirrers up in the form of Amnesty International and ShareAction, both do gooder types of organisations. The substance of them though is what matters.

Dod

[Gengulphus]

I don't disagree with your observations, Gengulphus although the HSBC one had a very good attendance at over 300. Unilever has two AGMs of course, because of its dual structure and that would certainly count for some of the shortfall.

AGMs have for as long as I have been attending them been mostly made up of retirees but we also have professional stirrers up in the form of Amnesty International and ShareAction, both do gooder types of organisations. The substance of them though is what matters.

Not disagreeing with any of that either, and I do think that as shareholders, we'd do well to get to know the companies we have shares in better, and indeed sometimes to supply feedback to them. And attending an AGM gives an opportunity to do both - but for most shareholders, not one that's fit for purpose because of its impracticality...

Not a problem that I have a solution for, unfortunately!

Gengulphus