Unilever - SIMPLIFICATION OF UNILEVER'S CORPORATE STRUCTURE

[ayshfm1]

Mine are with Halifax - you open a chat session and tell them you want to vote and which way.

[vrdiver]

I notice that others are voting, or have voted.

My ULVR shares are held in a Halifax account, as I guess will be the case with several others here. All I've had has been a general notification of ULVR's intentions -- nothing to actually vote on.

Is my experience at variance with other ULVR shareholders, especially those with holdings at Halifax?

MDW1954

Mine are with AJ Bell Youinvest. They send you a secure message (within the account, not to email) and when you click on it, you open a voting form which you complete online.

[idpickering]

Mine are with Halifax - you open a chat session and tell them you want to vote and which way.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that option. I shall do that today, and cast my cast my 'no' vote.

Ian.

[idpickering]

Mine are with Halifax - you open a chat session and tell them you want to vote and which way.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of that option. I shall do that today, and cast my cast my 'no' vote.

Ian.

My vote no now cast via Halifax. I wonder if we ran a poll among us here if that would provide a better idea of how our gang feels about this corporate structure change?

Ian.

[ax1709cjm]

Does anyone have their ULVR shares in a Selftrade ISA? Any idea whether Selftrade allow you to vote, and if so the procedure to use?

[MDW1954]

Does anyone have their ULVR shares in a Selftrade ISA? Any idea whether Selftrade allow you to vote, and if so the procedure to use?

I would be absolutely amazed if Selftrade didn't allow you to vote. That's effectively disenfranchisement, and quite possibly illegal.

MDW1954

[pyad]

For HYPers why should we care either way? I've held ULVR since forever in my HYP, having managed to grab it on an acceptable yield. Whether it goes Dutch or not won't make any difference to me. It will be the same share, quoted in the UK which is the key point for me.

ULVR stated in the doc that no tax will be deducted from divs. Either the company believes this to be true, no doubt having been advised of it, or they are outright lying, or they are spectacularly incompetent. And even if at some time in the future Dutch withholding tax does come in, so what? I can then consider my options.

[Gengulphus]

The only one that I spotted that was an actual argument about the move because the move would actually change things in an arguably-beneficial way was essentially the "more flexibility to make strategic changes to the Unilever Group’s portfolio" reason given in the Scheme Document...

Did they mention "more difficult to be taken over by an American predator"? Isn't that really why they are doing it, to be able to shelter behind Dutch company law which can make a hostile approach more difficult?

I don't remember that actually being mentioned in the Radio 4 interview - though whether that's because it wasn't mentioned or just a memory failure on my part, I don't know. But with the current dual-company structure, in which about 55% of the group is in the Dutch parent company and 45% in the UK parent company, I cannot see why they can't shelter behind Dutch company law anyway. So that doesn't seem to me to say that the move would change things in an arguably-beneficial way: if anything, it would seem to me that being able to shelter behind either UK or Dutch company law is better than being able to shelter behind Dutch company law alone. (Probably not actually better at the moment or for the foreseeable future - it does sound as if Dutch company law provides a better shelter at present and I don't know of any plans to change either company law in relevant ways. But there's a lot more of the future than just the foreseeable part!)

Having said that, I don't know very much about Dutch company law or about how either company law applies to dual-company structures, so I'm mainly working on the basis that everything I've seen about changes to dual-company structures (including this proposal) has had to succeed in both parts to succeed overall. Also, I can't really imagine a bidder wanting to succeed in one part and not the other, nor getting finance for the attempt even if they did want to - the resulting mess would be reminiscent of King Solomon's judgement! So it seems near-certain that any bidder would impose a "won't go ahead unless both parts are acquired" condition even if it wasn't required by company law...

Gengulphus

[Dod101]

For HYPers why should we care either way? I've held ULVR since forever in my HYP, having managed to grab it on an acceptable yield. Whether it goes Dutch or not won't make any difference to me. It will be the same share, quoted in the UK which is the key point for me.

ULVR stated in the doc that no tax will be deducted from divs. Either the company believes this to be true, no doubt having been advised of it, or they are outright lying, or they are spectacularly incompetent. And even if at some time in the future Dutch withholding tax does come in, so what? I can then consider my options.

The reasons why HYPers should care has been well argued on this lengthy thread and I am certainly not going to repeat them.

Dod

[absolutezero]

For HYPers why should we care either way? I've held ULVR since forever in my HYP, having managed to grab it on an acceptable yield. Whether it goes Dutch or not won't make any difference to me. It will be the same share, quoted in the UK which is the key point for me.

ULVR stated in the doc that no tax will be deducted from divs. Either the company believes this to be true, no doubt having been advised of it, or they are outright lying, or they are spectacularly incompetent. And even if at some time in the future Dutch withholding tax does come in, so what? I can then consider my options.

The reasons why HYPers should care has been well argued on this lengthy thread and I am certainly not going to repeat them.

Dod

PYAD is a 'do nothing' kind of guy.
He did nothing with Carillion in his tip sheet....

[IanTHughes]

For HYPers why should we care either way? I've held ULVR since forever in my HYP, having managed to grab it on an acceptable yield. Whether it goes Dutch or not won't make any difference to me. It will be the same share, quoted in the UK which is the key point for me.
ULVR stated in the doc that no tax will be deducted from divs. Either the company believes this to be true, no doubt having been advised of it, or they are outright lying, or they are spectacularly incompetent. And even if at some time in the future Dutch withholding tax does come in, so what? I can then consider my options.

The reasons why HYPers should care has been well argued on this lengthy thread and I am certainly not going to repeat them.

PYAD is a 'do nothing' kind of guy.

According to the company, the dividends paid to UK Shareholders will not be affected at all and the shares will continue to be listed in the UK. What else is there to be concerned about? What is there to do?

He did nothing with Carillion in his tip sheet....

A Tip Sheet is not a fortune telling crystal ball!


Ian

[absolutezero]

According to the company, the dividends paid to UK Shareholders will not be affected at all and the shares will continue to be listed in the UK. What else is there to be concerned about? What is there to do?

He did nothing with Carillion in his tip sheet....

A Tip Sheet is not a fortune telling crystal ball!


Ian

Unilever's statements and reading of future Dutch tax legislation is not a fortune telling crystal ball!

[StepOne]

Pyad's general point is right though, that HYPers shouldn't concern themselves with stuff like this. It's impossible for us to know whether it will be a good thing or bad thing (or somewhere in between!) for Unilever's dividends.

[ayshfm1]

Pyad's statements are based on talking what the company wrote down at face value. The problem is that those statements are simply their best guess (and designed to support the action they want to take).

I can also make my own statement and it's a good deal more precise than theirs.

If the withholding tax change is not passed, then the capital earmarked to be returned WILL deplete over time and when it's gone we WILL have to pay withholding tax.

That's leaving aside the political risks of the tax being repealed, re-instated and either UK or Dutch Government altering the capital repayment rules.

Why would anyone choose to vote for unnecessary uncertainty?

[Arborbridge]

Picking up on Gen's point, I don't believe the argument was mentioned on rdio 4 concerning Dutch law defending better from take over. In any case, I'm pretty sure that on the previous occasion the dual ownership - and the complication of Dutch law - was one significant factor which deterred the predators. Hopefully, that would also be true next time.

Pyad's point is perfectly valid. For a HYPer, what's all the fuss about? - just sleep on it. If the withholding tax does eventually make the share untenable for you, cross that one when you come to it. At present, no one can be certain what the change will bring forth, so there's nothing to do, except vote, if you feel strongly. If you are an active investor or of a nervous disposition, that's a different matter, but I see no reason why a HYPer would do anything at all at present .

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Pyad's statements are based on talking what the company wrote down at face value.

I'm not sure that's true: Pyad's attitude is governed by his belief as a HYPer that one is better doing nothing rather than reacting to arguments which weave this way and that. His conclusion does not depend on how reliable or unreliable the company statements are at all.

Arb.

[Wizard]

I mentioned further up this thread that I was toying with swapping Unilever with Tate & Lyle, well this I did two hours ago. I can't be doing with uncertainty, and although I realise nothing is certain in investing, I can't see this Unilever deal doing much but causing more angst for UK holders of the shares, so no thanks, and goodbye Unilever. I might get some flak here, but peace of mind is important to me. It is a shame, as they were always a good mainstay in my HYP. But as a lower yielding share, and all this kerfuffle, I'm happier out of it. Good luck to those that are hanging in there.

But then...

My vote no now cast via Halifax. I wonder if we ran a poll among us here if that would provide a better idea of how our gang feels about this corporate structure change?

I for one am jolly confused

Terry.

[IanTHughes]

reading of future Dutch tax legislation is not a fortune telling crystal ball!

Really? While you are reading the "future Dutch Tax Legislation", could you get me tomorrow's racing results please?


Ian

[idpickering]

I mentioned further up this thread that I was toying with swapping Unilever with Tate & Lyle, well this I did two hours ago. I can't be doing with uncertainty, and although I realise nothing is certain in investing, I can't see this Unilever deal doing much but causing more angst for UK holders of the shares, so no thanks, and goodbye Unilever. I might get some flak here, but peace of mind is important to me. It is a shame, as they were always a good mainstay in my HYP. But as a lower yielding share, and all this kerfuffle, I'm happier out of it. Good luck to those that are hanging in there.

But then...

My vote no now cast via Halifax. I wonder if we ran a poll among us here if that would provide a better idea of how our gang feels about this corporate structure change?

I for one am jolly confused

Terry.

I you’re right Terry. No wonder the guy at Halifax thought I was a bit nuts . I can hardly vote having sold my Unilever shares! Idiot.

Ian.

[Dod101]

Apart from the financial arguments about the DWT, the incorporation in the Netherlands, the fact that new shares will be in nominee holdings, and withdrawal from the FTSE100 making it more unbalanced than ever, I also mentioned the national interest in my post no166195 of 13 September.
These points should be enough to make anyone, whether holding Unilever as a HYPer or otherwise, to think very carefully. [Deleted]

pyad incidentally was wrong in his post no 166243 of 14 September when he said that the matter was a foregone conclusion or words to that effect since Unilever would have sounded out the institutional shareholders in advance. The reason the Unilever management are looking rattled I am sure is because the PLC meetings have a much higher bar than the Dutch meetings (maybe another reason for wanting to incorporate in the Netherlands) Apart from a majority of 75% in value of shares, the Court Meeting requires a majority in number of those voting as well. There are I read recently far more in number of individual shareholders than institutional shareholders and so they could easily derail the process, even if they got the 75% majority of shares voted.

Dod

Moderator Message:
Edited to include links to posts. Raptor.

Moderator Message:
Sentence attacking the poster rather than his argument removed. - Chris.