Unilever (ULVR)

[idpickering]

2021 FULL YEAR RESULTS

Full year highlights

· Fastest underlying sales growth in nine years - 4.5%, with 2.9% price and 1.6% volume

· Turnover increased 3.4%, with a positive impact from acquisitions and a negative impact from currency

· Underlying operating profit increased 2.9% and underlying operating margin decreased by 10bps

· Underlying earnings per share increased 5.5% and diluted earnings per share 9.2%

· Announced the sale of Tea business for €4.5 billion, with completion expected in H2 2022

· Completed €3 billion of share buybacks in 2021; announcing further €3 billion programme for 2022-2023

· Dividend per share growth of 3% for 2021

· Announced a simpler, more category-focused organisational model.

The Board has declared a quarterly interim dividend for Q4 2021 of £0.3602 per Unilever PLC ordinary share or €0.4268 per Unilever PLC ordinary share at the applicable exchange rate issued by WM/Reuters on 8 February 2022.

The following amounts will be paid in respect of this quarterly interim dividend on the relevant payment date:

Per Unilever PLC ordinary share (traded on the London Stock Exchange):

£ 0. 3602



Per Unilever PLC ordinary share (traded on Euronext in Amsterdam):

€ 0. 4268



Per Unilever PLC American Depositary Receipt:

US$ 0. 4873



The euro and US dollar amounts above have been determined using the applicable exchange rates issued by WM/Reuters on
8 February 2022.

US dollar cheques for the quarterly interim dividend will be mailed on 22 March 2022 to holders of record at the close of business on 25 February 2022.

The quarterly dividend calendar for the remainder of 2022 will be as follows:

Ex Div 24 Feb 22, paid 22 Mar 22.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/unilever- ... 00032276B/

Ian.

[Dod101]

Well, I would def. consider Vaseline a healthcare product. Whst household uses does it have?

You know those times when you can use a candle for lubrication with wood? Like drawer runners, or bed sides to bed heads, or on screws?
It can be pretty good for that (and actually a bit less messy as you can be more accurate)

It's also not bad as a preventative for corrosion on exposed electric terminals - car batteries, push fit blade terminals that kind of thing
There are more specialised products but vaseline is readily available
- and elicits an interesting response when you present it along with the 3' soil moisture probe that's needing installed https://aquacheckusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Probe2_F.png

- sd

My point was that Unilever are into some sort of healthcare products already. If I wanted to buy vaseline I would go to a chemist not a hardware store as for say WD40

Dod

[Dod101]

2021 FULL YEAR RESULTS

Full year highlights

· Fastest underlying sales growth in nine years - 4.5%, with 2.9% price and 1.6% volume

· Turnover increased 3.4%, with a positive impact from acquisitions and a negative impact from currency

· Underlying operating profit increased 2.9% and underlying operating margin decreased by 10bps

· Underlying earnings per share increased 5.5% and diluted earnings per share 9.2%

· Announced the sale of Tea business for €4.5 billion, with completion expected in H2 2022

· Completed €3 billion of share buybacks in 2021; announcing further €3 billion programme for 2022-2023

· Dividend per share growth of 3% for 2021

· Announced a simpler, more category-focused organisational model.

The Board has declared a quarterly interim dividend for Q4 2021 of £0.3602 per Unilever PLC ordinary share or €0.4268 per Unilever PLC ordinary share at the applicable exchange rate issued by WM/Reuters on 8 February 2022.

The following amounts will be paid in respect of this quarterly interim dividend on the relevant payment date:

Per Unilever PLC ordinary share (traded on the London Stock Exchange):

£ 0. 3602



Per Unilever PLC ordinary share (traded on Euronext in Amsterdam):

€ 0. 4268



Per Unilever PLC American Depositary Receipt:

US$ 0. 4873



The euro and US dollar amounts above have been determined using the applicable exchange rates issued by WM/Reuters on
8 February 2022.

US dollar cheques for the quarterly interim dividend will be mailed on 22 March 2022 to holders of record at the close of business on 25 February 2022.

The quarterly dividend calendar for the remainder of 2022 will be as follows:

Ex Div 24 Feb 22, paid 22 Mar 22.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/unilever- ... 00032276B/

Ian.

Thanks Ian. So no major acquisitions in the foreseeable future. Otherwise it all looks fine to me with a sense of urgency in it all. Further share buybacks. Detractors will obviously find plenty to say I have no doubt but to me let the management get on with the job. Given the outlook for inflation they might have been a bit more generous with the dividend increase.

Dod

[idpickering]

ULVR down 3.7% as I type, so the results haven't been taken well it seems. I'm not worried though as the yield is higher. I intend topping up my Unilever holdings in my HYP soon.

Ian.

[scrumpyjack]

Well if they can't grow the business much but are profitable and have a depressed share price, buybacks are probably a good idea to spread the earnings over fewer shares and get a bit more value per share that way! At current levels I would much prefer them to buy back shares than to spray huge numbers of new shares in ill judged acquisitions.

[vand]

Reasonable results imo. The underlying business is doing ok. We are closer to the start of the price raising cycle than we are to the end, and I expect ULVR to pass on higher prices to their customers over the course of this inflationary bout, just as they have done in past cycles.

Jupe seems to be public enemy number 1 in the City right now, though.

[scrumpyjack]

Reasonable results imo. The underlying business is doing ok. We are closer to the start of the price raising cycle than we are to the end, and I expect ULVR to pass on higher prices to their customers over the course of this inflationary bout, just as they have done in past cycles.

Jupe seems to be public enemy number 1 in the City right now, though.

I think it's Jope, (as in dope!)

[simoan]

ULVR down 3.7% as I type, so the results haven't been taken well it seems. I'm not worried though as the yield is higher. I intend topping up my Unilever holdings in my HYP soon.

Ian.

Not surprised they are down. Warnings about increased input costs and lower operating margins is only ever likely to have one effect on the share price. Sales are vanity, profits are sanity. This is the key section IMHO:

2022 underlying operating margin is expected to be down by between 140bps and 240bps, so maintained between 16% and 17%, with the first half impacted more than the second half. We expect margin to be restored after 2022, with the bulk coming back in 2023 and the rest in 2024.

The market never likes delayed gratification. A lot can go wrong in three years.

[scrumpyjack]

Quite so. Unilever's margins were half Kraft's at the time the latter bid for them. Unilever confidently predicted they could get their margins a lot higher and that was the argument used for shareholders to reject the bid. But Unilever's margins have gone the other way. So it is no surprise that the city does not have much confidence in Jope and his team!

[BullDog]

Quite so. Unilever's margins were half Kraft's at the time the latter bid for them. Unilever confidently predicted they could get their margins a lot higher and that was the argument used for shareholders to reject the bid. But Unilever's margins have gone the other way. So it is no surprise that the city does not have much confidence in Jope and his team!

Indeed. Furthermore, I understand that the returns on the GSK portfolio to be acquired were lower than on the portfolio of ULVR brands they were anticipated to sell. Madness. No wonder the market has passed judgment the way if has.

[monabri]

Quite so. Unilever's margins were half Kraft's at the time the latter bid for them. Unilever confidently predicted they could get their margins a lot higher and that was the argument used for shareholders to reject the bid. But Unilever's margins have gone the other way. So it is no surprise that the city does not have much confidence in Jope and his team!

Indeed. Furthermore, I understand that the returns on the GSK portfolio to be acquired were lower than on the portfolio of ULVR brands they were anticipated to sell. Madness. No wonder the market has passed judgment the way if has.

If that is the case then one would need an explanation from the CFO. If no reasonable explanation was forthcoming then he needs to step down. You can't allow Multibillion pound companies to be run in that manner.

[BullDog]

Quite so. Unilever's margins were half Kraft's at the time the latter bid for them. Unilever confidently predicted they could get their margins a lot higher and that was the argument used for shareholders to reject the bid. But Unilever's margins have gone the other way. So it is no surprise that the city does not have much confidence in Jope and his team!

Indeed. Furthermore, I understand that the returns on the GSK portfolio to be acquired were lower than on the portfolio of ULVR brands they were anticipated to sell. Madness. No wonder the market has passed judgment the way if has.

If that is the case then one would need an explanation from the CFO. If no reasonable explanation was forthcoming then he needs to step down. You can't allow Multibillion pound companies to be run in that manner.

Exactly the point that Terry Smith was making. He asked the questions and in his words was fed gobbledegook.

It's a while ago now when the bid was big news, so I won't be able to find the link. The analysis about the relative profitability of consumer GSK v ULVR foods portfolio was in The Times. There was also an article echoing what my own view is regarding history repeating itself and the demise of ICI being similar to Unilever's present situation.

[simoan]

IMO Shareholders need Nelson Peltz on the board before Jope blows three big ones on buybacks. Unilever is clearly overstaffed compared to its peers. It needs to cut costs and there seems to be scope for a large reduction in headcount. Compare with P&G where Peltz has just left the board...

FY22 revenues at P&G are expected to be ~80B USD (70B EUR at current exchange rate) against 54.5 EUR for Unilever. And yet P&G achieves this with 2/3 the number of employees - 100k against 150k for Unilever. You can just imagine the amount of middle management and deadwood you could easily chop out of those 150k, and sure as eggs are eggs, they're all going to be wanting inflationary pay rises in the next three years. I would start there and restructure internally if necessary. This isn't rocket science. It just needs a catalyst, and that means Nelson Peltz on the board.

All the best, Si

[BullDog]

IMO Shareholders need Nelson Peltz on the board before Jope blows three big ones on buybacks. Unilever is clearly overstaffed compared to its peers. It needs to cut costs and there seems to be scope for a large reduction in headcount. Compare with P&G where Peltz has just left the board...

FY22 revenues at P&G are expected to be ~80B USD (70B EUR at current exchange rate) against 54.5 EUR for Unilever. And yet P&G achieves this with 2/3 the number of employees - 100K against 150K for Unilever. You can just imagine the amount of middle management and deadwood you could easily chop out of those 150K, and sure as eggs are eggs, they're all going to be wanting inflationary pay rises in the next three years. I would start there and restructure internally if necessary. This isn't rocket science. It just needs a catalyst, and that needs Peltz on the board.

All the best, Si

Back in the day it was Lord Hanson who catalysed the demerger of ICI Pharmaceutical Division*** which in turn led to ICI acquiring Unilever's Quest International business. And that effectively was the end of ICI. Peltz and his contemporaries are the modern version of Hanson.

*** Now it's Astra Zeneca.

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

I really do not understand the boards enthusiasm for purchasing GSK HC anyway.

I've already discussed brand appeal earlier on this thread. Why on earth should I be paying extra for branded painkillers (panadol) or hay fever tabs (piriton) when the unbranded stuff contains identical active ingredients in identical quantities and in the case of tescos own paracetamol are far cheaper.

Both me and (apologies for implied gender roles) every single working class housewife already knows this and has for years. The branded HC stuff you really only see selling to a small captive audience - garages or corner shops.

I can understand the attractiveness of branded foods. Lots will prefer Magnums or Hellmanns. But in the case of going after branded "healthcare" products in the days of falling real wages, the board IMHO, are barking mad and clearly out of touch. At least in the England I know of.......perhaps it's a different matter for Hindustan ULVR etc.

Matt

[TheMotorcycleBoy]

ULVR down 3.7% as I type, so the results haven't been taken well it seems. I'm not worried though as the yield is higher. I intend topping up my Unilever holdings in my HYP soon.

Ian.

I guess market makers probably look at the those operating numbers against a backdrop of +5% inflation and in that light don't see them as being very impressive?

[dealtn]

ULVR down 3.7% as I type, so the results haven't been taken well it seems. I'm not worried though as the yield is higher. I intend topping up my Unilever holdings in my HYP soon.

Ian.

I guess market makers probably look at the those operating numbers against a backdrop of +5% inflation and in that light don't see them as being very impressive?

Market makers make no such judgement, and rarely look at operating numbers like that. They focus on their, and the collective market's, order book. they try to match supply and demand, and to ensure they are not (too) long or short in a stock.

[simoan]

Back in the day it was Lord Hanson who catalysed the demerger of ICI Pharmaceutical Division*** which in turn led to ICI acquiring Unilever's Quest International business. And that effectively was the end of ICI. Peltz and his contemporaries are the modern version of Hanson.

*** Now it's Astra Zeneca.

Blimey! You must be a bit older than me to remember that I only have a very vague recollection of Lord Hanson from when I started out investing! Peltz turned P&G around and I'm pretty confident he and his colleagues could do the same at Unilever. If Terry Smith and other large holders are not talking to him, then they should be.

[BullDog]

Back in the day it was Lord Hanson who catalysed the demerger of ICI Pharmaceutical Division*** which in turn led to ICI acquiring Unilever's Quest International business. And that effectively was the end of ICI. Peltz and his contemporaries are the modern version of Hanson.

*** Now it's Astra Zeneca.

Blimey! You must be a bit older than me to remember that I only have a very vague recollection of Lord Hanson from when I started out investing! Peltz turned P&G around and I'm pretty confident he and his colleagues could do the same at Unilever. If Terry Smith and other large holders are not talking to him, then they should be.

Indeed. I lived through it. I was at ICI at the time. It's off topic here. I have a lot of things I could say about ICI that are all apparently happening at Unilever now. Suffice to say that at the moment you could pretty much substitute the names of either company into the conversation and it would still be correct.

Of course AZ has gone on to be a massive success story. The rest of the ICI company........

[Dod101]

Quite so. Unilever's margins were half Kraft's at the time the latter bid for them. Unilever confidently predicted they could get their margins a lot higher and that was the argument used for shareholders to reject the bid. But Unilever's margins have gone the other way. So it is no surprise that the city does not have much confidence in Jope and his team!

Indeed. Furthermore, I understand that the returns on the GSK portfolio to be acquired were lower than on the portfolio of ULVR brands they were anticipated to sell. Madness. No wonder the market has passed judgment the way if has.

If that is the case then one would need an explanation from the CFO. If no reasonable explanation was forthcoming then he needs to step down. You can't allow Multibillion pound companies to be run in that manner.

I have never thought much of the CFO, at least not since he, as a Scottish accountant, seemed not to understand that the UK market was unlikely to vote for Unilever to decamp to the Netherlands.

The other point is that Jope is reaping the doubtful benefits of Polman's obsession with ESG things, rather than concentrating on running a lean ship. Has anyone seen on a Unilever website for instance, the nonsense explanation of the designs on their trademark U (the one you find on all their products)? It is not just a fancy design apparently, but each little bit means something and they have more or less dedicated a webpage to tell us what. How much would that have cost? Replicate that throughout the organisation and see!

Just Google Unilever Logo. Sorry I do not know how to provide a link.

Dod