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
Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10366
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3599 times
Been thanked: 5226 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486062

Postby Arborbridge » March 12th, 2022, 11:46 am

idpickering wrote:
MrFoolish wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:However, the supermarket thing is hardly new - own brands have been with us for???? a hundred years or more?
Indeed some items bought in a supermarket have become sought after "brands" in their own right, just as good as the originals.

Arb.


Totally correct. Most people love brands, whether it is rational or not. Does anyone on this board live a life which is brand free? Do you own the cheapest car and buy Happy Shopper whisky (or whatever is your tipple)?


Interesting chat this. Up here in Orkney we have a Tesco and Lidl. My wife shops in both, but gets my coffee, Nescafe, dry roasted peanuts, and alcohol free shandy from Tesco, because Lidl don't sell those, but buys most everything else, like home brand cleaning products, from Lidl.

As for ULVR as a share/company, I find the comments from those that say they've sold out interesting. Hmm? I've held ULVR for years, but I'm certainly not in love with it. Maybe there's better options elsewhere? I'd like to hold onto ULVR though I think? imho, they're on offer right now.

Ian.


The thing is, we know diddly-squat about anything, let alone about the future. That's why we spread our investments around in little caches like a squirrel burying nuts. It seems to me quite a regular occurance that one or other of the various stock market constitutents gets rollocking over the years, and then there is always an army of "well informed" investors (well, we can only assume they may be!) who either just got out at the right time or never invested in x or y in the first place because they knew it would end in tears. It put this in the folder called "market noise". Naturally, there do seem to be people who can spot and opportunity, a safe share or a looming disaster, but I am clear not one of them. And those who do, never seem to come clean about their results in a cogent and convincing way which can be tracked over the years.

Oh well, I'll carry on in my own cloud of ignorance both specific and strategic because I've seen this stuff come and go over decades. If company is big enough, the chances are it will evolve to defend itself like an organism. Not always, of course, - look at GEC - but all one needs is a big enough percentage of survivors: that is what I call the "portfolio effect" - or not putting one's eggs in one basket.

And then, there's always the option to leave it to the professionals by buying ITs or similar pooled investment.

Arb.

idpickering
The full Lemon
Posts: 11275
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:04 pm
Has thanked: 2468 times
Been thanked: 5761 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486070

Postby idpickering » March 12th, 2022, 12:05 pm

Arborbridge wrote:
The thing is, we know diddly-squat about anything, let alone about the future. That's why we spread our investments around in little caches like a squirrel burying nuts. It seems to me quite a regular occurance that one or other of the various stock market constitutents gets rollocking over the years, and then there is always an army of "well informed" investors (well, we can only assume they may be!) who either just got out at the right time or never invested in x or y in the first place because they knew it would end in tears. It put this in the folder called "market noise". Naturally, there do seem to be people who can spot and opportunity, a safe share or a looming disaster, but I am clear not one of them. And those who do, never seem to come clean about their results in a cogent and convincing way which can be tracked over the years.

Oh well, I'll carry on in my own cloud of ignorance both specific and strategic because I've seen this stuff come and go over decades. If company is big enough, the chances are it will evolve to defend itself like an organism. Not always, of course, - look at GEC - but all one needs is a big enough percentage of survivors: that is what I call the "portfolio effect" - or not putting one's eggs in one basket.

And then, there's always the option to leave it to the professionals by buying ITs or similar pooled investment.

Arb.


Wise words indeed Arb, thank you. Although I have no interest in leaving it to the (so-called) professionals.

Ian.

absolutezero
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1505
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 653 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486076

Postby absolutezero » March 12th, 2022, 12:21 pm

Arborbridge wrote:The thing is, we know diddly-squat about anything, let alone about the future. That's why we spread our investments around in little caches like a squirrel burying nuts. It seems to me quite a regular occurance that one or other of the various stock market constitutents gets rollocking over the years, and then there is always an army of "well informed" investors (well, we can only assume they may be!) who either just got out at the right time or never invested in x or y in the first place because they knew it would end in tears. It put this in the folder called "market noise". Naturally, there do seem to be people who can spot and opportunity, a safe share or a looming disaster, but I am clear not one of them. And those who do, never seem to come clean about their results in a cogent and convincing way which can be tracked over the years.

Arb.

So in a round about sort of way you have made the argument for buying tracker funds.
Yet you try to stock pick. :?:
(I do the same, by the way :lol: )

Surely a tracker would be better for someone in your (our?) boat who says 'I am clear not one of them'!
Even if you are a HYPer.
Blackrock do a high yield ETF (IUKD) that's full of the usual HYP candidates and has a current trailing yield of 5.8%

moorfield
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3523
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 1:56 pm
Has thanked: 1546 times
Been thanked: 1402 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486090

Postby moorfield » March 12th, 2022, 1:04 pm

absolutezero wrote:So in a round about sort of way you have made the argument for buying tracker funds.
Yet you try to stock pick. :?:
(I do the same, by the way :lol: )


I think we've established this is a "hobby" for many people here, which reminds me of the old joke:

How to save up a million pounds? Well start with two million... :)

simoan
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2089
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:37 am
Has thanked: 462 times
Been thanked: 1456 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486106

Postby simoan » March 12th, 2022, 2:20 pm

Arborbridge wrote:The thing is, we know diddly-squat about anything, let alone about the future. That's why we spread our investments around in little caches like a squirrel burying nuts.

Arb.

This isn’t true though, apart from obviously not knowing what the future will hold. Investing across multiple companies is because we understand risk and how to mitigate against it.

And in terms of Unilever, lest we completely forget what this thread is about, we know they already passed on increased costs and volumes have fallen. Leading to little real gain in overall revenue. That’s not a good starting point for what may be coming IMHO.

As to whether Unilever offers good value right now, it’s no good anchoring to recent prices. I always find it helpful to look at a 10 year chart to see where the price could retreat too when I get that feeling.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4809
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 2673 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486110

Postby scrumpyjack » March 12th, 2022, 2:39 pm

It is interesting that nearly half of Unilever's market cap is accounted for by its 61.9% holding in Hindustan Unilever. It is separately quoted with a market cap of $64 billion. Yet one never hears much about that?

ADrunkenMarcus
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1584
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 11:16 am
Has thanked: 672 times
Been thanked: 478 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486111

Postby ADrunkenMarcus » March 12th, 2022, 2:48 pm

simoan wrote:IMHO this is too simplistic. We are talking about cost-push inflation now, not the demand-pull effect which we saw when Covid lockdowns ended. We should be asking ourselves how inflation plus higher interest rates and energy supply cost increases do not lead to a recession which means people trading down and discretionary spending dropping significantly. Recessionary conditions where people spend less is not good for credit card companies, or any other finance company other than pawnbrokers. I am long H&T, Begbies Traynor and FRP Advisory. I also bought a Physical Gold ETC for the first time ever three weeks ago.


I'm not making a detailed analysis. Unilever is a resource intensive business in terms of raw materials and will therefore be much more affected by materials and commodity inflation than other companies which are not. Raising prices in this context is simply to stand still, not to expand margin or grow the business. And I fully agree this will be a test of Unilever's 'moat'. Some brands will fare better than others!

On the issue of interest rates, I'm not sure raising them in response to cost-push inflation is a sensible response. What we do see is an increasing proportion of transactions going from cash to electronic and it may well be that people use credit cards more than they used to use debit. I'm not sure to what degree people would be spending less if the cost pressures are most acute on essential staples of everyday living such as food and fuel. There is a limit to how much people will be able to cut down on eating and heating.

Best wishes


Mark

csearle
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4762
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 2:24 pm
Has thanked: 4809 times
Been thanked: 2083 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486116

Postby csearle » March 12th, 2022, 3:18 pm

Moderator Message:
Please let us stay focussed on Unilever in this thread as it is very easy to wander off-topic given the (sadly) interesting times in which we appear to be living. - Chris

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10366
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3599 times
Been thanked: 5226 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486132

Postby Arborbridge » March 12th, 2022, 4:44 pm

moorfield wrote:
absolutezero wrote:So in a round about sort of way you have made the argument for buying tracker funds.
Yet you try to stock pick. :?:
(I do the same, by the way :lol: )


I think we've established this is a "hobby" for many people here, which reminds me of the old joke:

How to save up a million pounds? Well start with two million... :)


Wasn't it: "how do you become a millionaire?" - "Start of with two million and buy an airline". That's probably replaced by "illionaire", now.

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10366
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3599 times
Been thanked: 5226 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486133

Postby Arborbridge » March 12th, 2022, 4:46 pm

absolutezero wrote:
Arborbridge wrote:The thing is, we know diddly-squat about anything, let alone about the future. That's why we spread our investments around in little caches like a squirrel burying nuts. It seems to me quite a regular occurance that one or other of the various stock market constitutents gets rollocking over the years, and then there is always an army of "well informed" investors (well, we can only assume they may be!) who either just got out at the right time or never invested in x or y in the first place because they knew it would end in tears. It put this in the folder called "market noise". Naturally, there do seem to be people who can spot and opportunity, a safe share or a looming disaster, but I am clear not one of them. And those who do, never seem to come clean about their results in a cogent and convincing way which can be tracked over the years.

Arb.

So in a round about sort of way you have made the argument for buying tracker funds.
Yet you try to stock pick. :?:
(I do the same, by the way :lol: )

Surely a tracker would be better for someone in your (our?) boat who says 'I am clear not one of them'!
Even if you are a HYPer.
Blackrock do a high yield ETF (IUKD) that's full of the usual HYP candidates and has a current trailing yield of 5.8%


A tracker won't give me the yield I did - or wouldn't when I first became involved in HYP. I once had a holding in IUKD but wasn't very impressed with the dividend stability at the time, so I gave up thinking of it as a HYP substitute.

Arb.

Arborbridge
The full Lemon
Posts: 10366
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:33 am
Has thanked: 3599 times
Been thanked: 5226 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486134

Postby Arborbridge » March 12th, 2022, 4:48 pm

csearle wrote:
Moderator Message:
Please let us stay focussed on Unilever in this thread as it is very easy to wander off-topic given the (sadly) interesting times in which we appear to be living. - Chris


Apologies for taking the liberty of the last two posts: they were answering points directly addressed to me which I had seen as I have been out today.

Promise no more wandering :)

Arb.

kempiejon
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3487
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 10:30 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 1145 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486135

Postby kempiejon » March 12th, 2022, 4:51 pm

The quickest way to become a millionaire in the airline business is to start out as a billionaire.”
Richard Branson

from a quick google.

edit to add I see Marmite prices are going up.

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

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486212

Postby Dod101 » March 13th, 2022, 8:47 am

Back on topic (this is after all the Company Share News thread on Unilever)

I have just written to the Unilever Chairman but because of the number of issues that are of concern have had to restrict myself to just three. These are

The approach to GSK. Should never have been in the public domain, Ill thought out and apparently no plans for how to fund it nor any approach to major shareholders

Ben and Jerry's political stance about the so called Occupied Palestinian Territory. If they have no control over the Board then they must sell.

Wokism in general including about Hellman's.

I could go on but I find that writing a book is not conducive to a response!

I have not mentioned the share price because they of course have no control over that and this is not the best time anyway to judge it because of Covid and now Putin, although the shares are now standing at their lowest for a long time at around £33.

Would others do the same please? Chose different topics if you like.

Dod

BullDog
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2443
Joined: November 18th, 2021, 11:57 am
Has thanked: 1964 times
Been thanked: 1196 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486225

Postby BullDog » March 13th, 2022, 9:50 am

Dod101 wrote:Back on topic (this is after all the Company Share News thread on Unilever)

I have just written to the Unilever Chairman but because of the number of issues that are of concern have had to restrict myself to just three. These are

The approach to GSK. Should never have been in the public domain, Ill thought out and apparently no plans for how to fund it nor any approach to major shareholders

Ben and Jerry's political stance about the so called Occupied Palestinian Territory. If they have no control over the Board then they must sell.

Wokism in general including about Hellman's.

I could go on but I find that writing a book is not conducive to a response!

I have not mentioned the share price because they of course have no control over that and this is not the best time anyway to judge it because of Covid and now Putin, although the shares are now standing at their lowest for a long time at around £33.

Would others do the same please? Chose different topics if you like.

Dod

Good luck. I expect you to get a boiler plate condescending response, but if people don't express concern, that's even worse.

Just took a quick look, I think the share price is around where it was in 2016-ish.

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

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486229

Postby Dod101 » March 13th, 2022, 10:06 am

BullDog wrote:Good luck. I expect you to get a boiler plate condescending response, but if people don't express concern, that's even worse.

Just took a quick look, I think the share price is around where it was in 2016-ish.


That is of course the point. If people just confine themselves to moaning on sites like this nothing will happen. A loan voice like mine will do nothing but if a lot of people and more especially institutional investors say something something may happen. I will be very disappointed if I get a condescending response. I think even Unilever knows very well that that would not be helpful to anyone. I am under no illusions. I am most likely to get the standard response which their investor relations people will have ready. Attending an AGM and asking questions gives fewer hiding places for the Chairman and his directors and can often encourage others to join in.

I usually confine myself to writing to IT chairmen and nearly always get a direct response from the chairman but then these are much smaller companies and they want to encourage individual investors.

Dod

absolutezero
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1505
Joined: November 17th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 542 times
Been thanked: 653 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486312

Postby absolutezero » March 13th, 2022, 3:49 pm

Dod101 wrote: A loan voice like mine will do nothing but if a lot of people and more especially institutional investors say something something may happen. I will be very disappointed if I get a condescending response.

You sum it up there.

They don't care what you, I or any other small shareholder thinks.
In fact if you don't hold your shares in CREST or certificated form, you aren't even a shareholder as far as ULVR is concerned.

If you aren't an institutional investor, forget it. It might make you feel better but will achieve nothing.
I sold my holding because of my dissatisfaction. I feel much better.
And selling is the only power you have.

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

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486343

Postby Dod101 » March 13th, 2022, 6:31 pm

absolutezero wrote:
Dod101 wrote: A loan voice like mine will do nothing but if a lot of people and more especially institutional investors say something something may happen. I will be very disappointed if I get a condescending response.

You sum it up there.

They don't care what you, I or any other small shareholder thinks.
In fact if you don't hold your shares in CREST or certificated form, you aren't even a shareholder as far as ULVR is concerned.

If you aren't an institutional investor, forget it. It might make you feel better but will achieve nothing.
I sold my holding because of my dissatisfaction. I feel much better.
And selling is the only power you have.


Selling is the only power we have but so what? It achieves nothing. I am a certificated shareholder and have been for about 30 years. I will be very interested to see what they say.

Anyway the Sunday Times comments that Nick Train, having sold half of his fund's holding in Pearson back in January, may well have got his timing wrong. (He tells us that he sold because he had to sell something and Pearson was the least attractive share he held) Maybe those that are selling out of Unilever will regret it in due course, because if a bid was worthwhile a few years back. I should imagine that someone must be running their rule over Unilever now at £33. This is a major UK company and we should be rallying behind it, not deserting it. And the strange attitude to me is that shareholders seem not interested to making their feelings known at the AGM which is coming up on 4 May 2022. There, the Chairman has no hiding place and one voice is as good as another at these gatherings.

Nil desperandum!

Dod

KnightOfSpring
Lemon Pip
Posts: 50
Joined: January 20th, 2020, 9:26 pm
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486349

Postby KnightOfSpring » March 13th, 2022, 7:14 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:It is interesting that nearly half of Unilever's market cap is accounted for by its 61.9% holding in Hindustan Unilever. It is separately quoted with a market cap of $64 billion. Yet one never hears much about that?


Yes the only person I have heard go on about the Hindustan Unilever shareholding is Nick Train. Not even heard Terry Smith mention it, even though he holds it in his Fundsmith Emerging Equities Trust. Perhaps the fact that no one commented on your observation here is also indicative of the apparent apathy to this potential jewel in Unilever's crown.

I am not certain, as it's tricky working the numbers out, but I think that Unilever's stake represents about 34.4% of Unilever's Market Cap (rather than the 50% you quote though). This seems broadly in line with Nick Train's comment from his August 2021 monthly report that then the HUL stake was worth nearly £40m. HUL has come off a fair bit more than Unilever itself since then, but still seems to be rated on a PE of about 62 times. I am no Indian stock market expert (probably no UK one either :) ) but I can see this rating being justified- the Indian economy should be expected to grow pretty quickly in the next 10+ years. The management seems top quality (listening to a couple of their results webcasts should give you this impression) and they have a second to none distribution network.Despite paying top dollar for Glaxo's brands (Horlicks being the biggest) in I think 2018, they seem to have made a resounding success of the acquisition with strong growth in both turnover and margins.

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

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486354

Postby Dod101 » March 13th, 2022, 7:32 pm

KnightOfSpring wrote:
scrumpyjack wrote:It is interesting that nearly half of Unilever's market cap is accounted for by its 61.9% holding in Hindustan Unilever. It is separately quoted with a market cap of $64 billion. Yet one never hears much about that?


Yes the only person I have heard go on about the Hindustan Unilever shareholding is Nick Train. Not even heard Terry Smith mention it, even though he holds it in his Fundsmith Emerging Equities Trust. Perhaps the fact that no one commented on your observation here is also indicative of the apparent apathy to this potential jewel in Unilever's crown.

I am not certain, as it's tricky working the numbers out, but I think that Unilever's stake represents about 34.4% of Unilever's Market Cap (rather than the 50% you quote though). This seems broadly in line with Nick Train's comment from his August 2021 monthly report that then the HUL stake was worth nearly £40m. HUL has come off a fair bit more than Unilever itself since then, but still seems to be rated on a PE of about 62 times. I am no Indian stock market expert (probably no UK one either :) ) but I can see this rating being justified- the Indian economy should be expected to grow pretty quickly in the next 10+ years. The management seems top quality (listening to a couple of their results webcasts should give you this impression) and they have a second to none distribution network.Despite paying top dollar for Glaxo's brands (Horlicks being the biggest) in I think 2018, they seem to have made a resounding success of the acquisition with strong growth in both turnover and margins.


And that is of course the point. Unilever is a worldwide success story but once things get on the other track, people in this country just follow the herd.

For all sorts of reasons, Unilever is worth holding.

Dod

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18674
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6557 times

Re: Unilever (ULVR)

#486358

Postby Lootman » March 13th, 2022, 7:39 pm

Dod101 wrote:For all sorts of reasons, Unilever is worth holding.

I would say that it is important to have an allocation to major international consumer staples companies with established brands, of which Unilever is one. They are very defensive and can demonstrate consistent growth with stability.

The problem is that the other choices you could have made in that sector instead, such as Proctor and Gamble, Nestles, Mondelez etc. have performed much better.

I don't want to own the scrawniest chicken in the shop just because it is "British".


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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests