Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Unilever (ULVR)

Share latest information on individual companies and hot news discussions. LSE Main Market companies only
Forum rules
No penny shares or promotional posts
scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#462937

Postby scrumpyjack » December 3rd, 2021, 4:57 pm

Keeping them in 'treasury' means the company has the option to re issue them if it wants to but does not affect earnings per share etc. The number of shares used to divide into profits is the issued shares held by shareholders and it makes no difference whether those bought back are cancelled or in treasury.

Breelander
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4179
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:42 pm
Has thanked: 1000 times
Been thanked: 1855 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#462938

Postby Breelander » December 3rd, 2021, 5:00 pm

Bouleversee wrote:Can someone explain how keeping the shares in treasury, as opposed to cancelling them, will enhance the value of existing shareholders' holdings. What is the object of this exercise? Do they think the shares are undervalued at present and plan to sell them when they go up or is this to increase the pool of shares to dish out in free or cut price options to personnel?

In almost all regards, putting shares in Treasury is the same as cancelling them. They no longer count towards the total of shares in issue and no longer receive dividends. Once in Treasury it's as if they didn't exist.

The 'enhanced value for existing shareholders' is the same, there are less shares to divide the dividend between, and each share in issue now represents a larger fraction of the company. The only difference is that it's cheaper for the company to take shares out of Treasury rather than issue new shares, should they be needed.

It doesn't seem to have done much for the s.p. so far.

No, share buybacks hardly ever do in my experience. But neither would it if the shares had been cancelled.

idpickering
The full Lemon
Posts: 11276
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:04 pm
Has thanked: 2468 times
Been thanked: 5763 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#462940

Postby idpickering » December 3rd, 2021, 5:03 pm

Dod101 wrote:

Retaining the share in treasury will not in itself do anything to enhance the share price. Buying back Euro3 billion ought to help the share price but maybe if anything all it has done is prevented a further drop in the price. I guess they may issue them towards the purchase price of a new acquisition but in the meantime just try to console yourself with the thought that it may have been a good time to buy in their shares. Unilever is it would seem out of favour at the moment.

Dod


Thanks for your input Dod. I agree regarding ULVR being out of favour currently. I intend topping up my holdings soon.

Ian.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#462944

Postby dealtn » December 3rd, 2021, 5:18 pm

Breelander wrote:
Bouleversee wrote:
It doesn't seem to have done much for the s.p. so far.

No, share buybacks hardly ever do in my experience. But neither would it if the shares had been cancelled.


How have you ever managed to witness the parallel exercise of not doing the buyback, and what was the difference in the value of the share price?

At best all you can say is the price hasn't appeared to have risen over the period of the exercise, but it might (and should) be lower without the buyback.

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#462948

Postby Dod101 » December 3rd, 2021, 5:28 pm

Breelander wrote:
It doesn't seem to have done much for the s.p. so far.

No, share buybacks hardly ever do in my experience. But neither would it if the shares had been cancelled.


As for share buybacks if they buy in enough shares it will certainly make a difference to the share price. You can see this with investment trusts such as Personal Assets where they successfully try to hold the share price at more or less NAV. In their case of course they are mostly doing the reverse and issuing new shares to try to suppress the premium but the principle is exactly the same.

The trouble for companies with a large market cap like Unilever and Shell is that their share buybacks are usually a small percentage of the total shares in issue and so it is difficult to see much positive effect in the share price.

Dod

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#462949

Postby Bouleversee » December 3rd, 2021, 5:37 pm

Thanks to all. Somewhat reassuring. I hooe the disappointing performance improves.

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4764
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 4814 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#462978

Postby csearle » December 3rd, 2021, 8:18 pm

Dod101 wrote:The trouble for companies with a large market cap like Unilever and Shell is that their share buybacks are usually a small percentage of the total shares in issue and so it is difficult to see much positive effect in the share price.
Yes, not quite as direct and in-ya-pocket as just giving the money to the company's owners. Also if one is trying to buy income then having an increased share price means just that at that moment it costs more to get that income. For me the benefits of share buybacks are just too indirect and vague to be appealing. C.

keith
Posts: 20
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 1034 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#463057

Postby keith » December 4th, 2021, 12:43 pm

Is the dividend payable on the shares in treasury

Keith

Bouleversee
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4652
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:01 pm
Has thanked: 1195 times
Been thanked: 902 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#463059

Postby Bouleversee » December 4th, 2021, 12:47 pm

keith wrote:Is the dividend payable on the shares in treasury

Keith

Presumably not if they are tantamount to being cancelled so that should add a little to the kitty.

monabri
Lemon Half
Posts: 8396
Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 1539 times
Been thanked: 3428 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#463065

Postby monabri » December 4th, 2021, 12:58 pm

keith wrote:Is the dividend payable on the shares in treasury

Keith


No.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasury_stock

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#463081

Postby Dod101 » December 4th, 2021, 1:57 pm

Bouleversee wrote:
keith wrote:Is the dividend payable on the shares in treasury

Keith

Presumably not if they are tantamount to being cancelled so that should add a little to the kitty.


Dividends are not paid on shares held in treasury. That would just be the company paying itself from one pocket into another. And of course as you say it means that there fewer mouths to feed when it comes to paying the dividend which either saves the company money or can modestly increase the amount available to others.

Dod

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#463242

Postby dealtn » December 5th, 2021, 12:33 pm

csearle wrote:
Dod101 wrote:The trouble for companies with a large market cap like Unilever and Shell is that their share buybacks are usually a small percentage of the total shares in issue and so it is difficult to see much positive effect in the share price.
Yes, not quite as direct and in-ya-pocket as just giving the money to the company's owners.


And the taxman, often too, will take money via that direct dividend, that could otherwise be left with the owners if that return was via a buyback. I would rather control my "income" and tax events, not the directors of the companies I partially own.

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#472387

Postby 88V8 » January 12th, 2022, 2:36 pm

One of Britain's best known investors has attacked Unilever for its "ludicrous" focus on sustainability, in a sign of growing City frustration at blue chip companies championing fashionable causes. Terry Smith, manager of the £29bn Fundsmith Equity fund, said that the consumer goods behemoth has become "obsessed" with its public image and mocked its efforts to imbue brands such as Hellman's mayonnaise with a higher purpose. Telegraph per ADVFN.

V8

monabri
Lemon Half
Posts: 8396
Joined: January 7th, 2017, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 1539 times
Been thanked: 3428 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#472400

Postby monabri » January 12th, 2022, 3:02 pm

88V8 wrote:One of Britain's best known investors has attacked Unilever for its "ludicrous" focus on sustainability, in a sign of growing City frustration at blue chip companies championing fashionable causes. Terry Smith, manager of the £29bn Fundsmith Equity fund, said that the consumer goods behemoth has become "obsessed" with its public image and mocked its efforts to imbue brands such as Hellman's mayonnaise with a higher purpose. Telegraph per ADVFN.

V8


What Smith said....( Fundsmith Annual Letter Jan 22 )

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... zh0ml7cwuW

"Unilever seems to be labouring under the weight of a management which is obsessed with publicly displaying sustainability credentials
at the expense of focusing on the fundamentals of the business. The most obvious manifestation of this is the public spat it has become
embroiled in over the refusal to supply Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in the West Bank. However, we think there are far more ludicrous examples
which illustrate the problem. A company which feels it has to define the purpose of Hellmann’s mayonnaise has in our view clearly lost
the plot. The Hellmann’s brand has existed since 1913 so we would guess that by now consumers have figured out its purpose (spoiler
alert — salads and sandwiches). Although Unilever had by far the worst performance of our consumer staples stocks during the
pandemic we continue to hold the shares because we think that its strong brands and distribution will triumph in the end."

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6072
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 2324 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#472414

Postby dealtn » January 12th, 2022, 3:29 pm

monabri wrote:
88V8 wrote:One of Britain's best known investors has attacked Unilever for its "ludicrous" focus on sustainability, in a sign of growing City frustration at blue chip companies championing fashionable causes. Terry Smith, manager of the £29bn Fundsmith Equity fund, said that the consumer goods behemoth has become "obsessed" with its public image and mocked its efforts to imbue brands such as Hellman's mayonnaise with a higher purpose. Telegraph per ADVFN.

V8


What Smith said....( Fundsmith Annual Letter Jan 22 )

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... zh0ml7cwuW

"Unilever seems to be labouring under the weight of a management which is obsessed with publicly displaying sustainability credentials
at the expense of focusing on the fundamentals of the business. The most obvious manifestation of this is the public spat it has become
embroiled in over the refusal to supply Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in the West Bank. However, we think there are far more ludicrous examples
which illustrate the problem. A company which feels it has to define the purpose of Hellmann’s mayonnaise has in our view clearly lost
the plot. The Hellmann’s brand has existed since 1913 so we would guess that by now consumers have figured out its purpose (spoiler
alert — salads and sandwiches). Although Unilever had by far the worst performance of our consumer staples stocks during the
pandemic we continue to hold the shares because we think that its strong brands and distribution will triumph in the end."


Exactly. Why purport to be news when the source itself can be quoted

https://www.fundsmith.co.uk/media/3wcng ... olders.pdf

rather than a 3rd party website quote of a second hand source newspaper?

Whilst not ULVR specific others might be interested in the other views of the long term, and continuing, investor in this company.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4814
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 606 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#472442

Postby scrumpyjack » January 12th, 2022, 4:34 pm

To be fair to Unilever, the decision made by Ben and Jerry was made by the independent board of that company under arrangements enshrined in the takeover agreement between Unilever and them. Ben and Jerry are Jews so it is hard to accuse them of anti semitism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/opin ... srael.html

I'm not defending Unilever and I completely agree with Terry Smith's rant about Unilever focussing on ridiculous greenwash rather than on running the business in a sustainable and profitable manner.

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#472501

Postby 88V8 » January 12th, 2022, 6:41 pm

dealtn wrote: Why purport to be news when the source itself can be quoted rather than a 3rd party website quote of a second hand source newspaper?

Fair point.
I assumed it was an interview.
I hold in my HYP, but am not overly inclined to add.

V8

TheMotorcycleBoy
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3245
Joined: March 7th, 2018, 8:14 pm
Has thanked: 2222 times
Been thanked: 587 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#473272

Postby TheMotorcycleBoy » January 15th, 2022, 12:04 pm

LONDON, Jan 15 (Reuters) - Consumer goods giant Unilever (ULVR.L) said it had approached Glaxosmithkline (GSK.L) about buying the pharmaceutical group's consumer goods arm after a newspaper reported that a 50 billion pound ($68.4 billion) offer it made had been rebuffed.

"GSK Consumer Healthcare is a leader in the attractive consumer health space and would be a strong strategic fit as Unilever continues to re-shape its portfolio," Unilever said in a statement on Saturday.

"There can be no certainty that any agreement will be reached."

GSK did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Earlier, Britain's Sunday Times said the Unilever bid for the business was worth roughly 50 billion pounds, and had been rejected as too low by GSK and Pfizer (PFE.N), which owns a minority stake in the division.

The approach by Unilever, which owns brands such as Dove soap and Marmite, for Glaxo’s portfolio of household brands including Panadol painkillers and Sensodyne toothpaste was understood to have been unsolicited, it added.

Unilever's bid did not include any takeover premium or recognition of synergies, the newspaper said. It was not clear whether Unilever would make a higher offer, it added.

see https://www.reuters.com/business/retail ... 022-01-15/

Matt

BullDog
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2445
Joined: November 18th, 2021, 11:57 am
Has thanked: 1966 times
Been thanked: 1197 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#473275

Postby BullDog » January 15th, 2022, 12:08 pm

No doubt that GSK's consumer products business is an excellent bolt on fit for Unilever. Would it add value for shareholders? Far less doubtful. History is littered with deals that destroy rather than add value.

ReformedCharacter
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3120
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:12 am
Has thanked: 3591 times
Been thanked: 1509 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#473276

Postby ReformedCharacter » January 15th, 2022, 12:12 pm

BullDog wrote:No doubt that GSK's consumer products business is an excellent bolt on fit for Unilever. Would it add value for shareholders? Far less doubtful. History is littered with deals that destroy rather than add value.

That's just what I was thinking.

RC


Return to “Company Share news (LSE Main Market)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ekipazh and 10 guests