Unilever (ULVR)
Forum rules
No penny shares or promotional posts
No penny shares or promotional posts
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 15021
- Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
Excellent although the Dutch shareholders might this time veto it? Anyway, London is a much bigger financial centre than Rotterdam and this will more or less follow the pattern of Royal Dutch Shell, where the parent company is in London. I suggested this to the previous chairman of Unilever but he was unimpressed. Wonder why?
So this will be a takeover in all but name by the UK based PLC of the Rotterdam based NV. Good although I suppose if I were Dutch I might not be too impressed. This is surely sensible.
Dod
So this will be a takeover in all but name by the UK based PLC of the Rotterdam based NV. Good although I suppose if I were Dutch I might not be too impressed. This is surely sensible.
Dod
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5676
- Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
Interesting that "Future Unilever European bonds having their primary listing in Amsterdam" is how they announce it. Given that London is the bigger financial centre, as you put it, I read that as Eurobond issuance will be conducted out of London, and listed in Amsterdam, but I might be wrong.Dod101 wrote:Excellent although the Dutch shareholders might this time veto it? Anyway, London is a much bigger financial centre than Rotterdam and this will more or less follow the pattern of Royal Dutch Shell, where the parent company is in London. I suggested this to the previous chairman of Unilever but he was unimpressed. Wonder why?
So this will be a takeover in all but name by the UK based PLC of the Rotterdam based NV. Good although I suppose if I were Dutch I might not be too impressed. This is surely sensible.
Dod
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 404
- Joined: November 30th, 2018, 2:18 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
dealtn
Nearly every bond issued in the euro market, be it eurodollar etc or in Euros have an official listing where bonds tend to trade by appointment once a day or so, but the real liquidity is OTC.
So it would be quite normal to list on the AEX, Luxembourg has probably the majority of euro listings and it is a very long list indeed !
Nearly every bond issued in the euro market, be it eurodollar etc or in Euros have an official listing where bonds tend to trade by appointment once a day or so, but the real liquidity is OTC.
So it would be quite normal to list on the AEX, Luxembourg has probably the majority of euro listings and it is a very long list indeed !
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1519
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 11:16 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
I think Rutte has a political alibi in that the parliament did not pass the dividend tax cut he championed, which was a concern many UK shareholders had.Dod101 wrote:Excellent although the Dutch shareholders might this time veto it? Anyway, London is a much bigger financial centre than Rotterdam and this will more or less follow the pattern of Royal Dutch Shell, where the parent company is in London. I suggested this to the previous chairman of Unilever but he was unimpressed. Wonder why?
So this will be a takeover in all but name by the UK based PLC of the Rotterdam based NV. Good although I suppose if I were Dutch I might not be too impressed. This is surely sensible.
Dod
Does the UK levy a withholding tax on dividends for overseas holders of UK shares? If not, the Dutch shareholders might be more amenable
Best wishes
Mark.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6203
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
Not sure if that was rhetorical but the answer is no, the UK does not operate a withholding tax system (and never did).ADrunkenMarcus wrote:[Does the UK levy a withholding tax on dividends for overseas holders of UK shares?
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 15021
- Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
The announcement specifically says that there will be no with holding tax on dividends for foreign holders of UK shares, although I see that PD has answered this already.
The Dutch vote also needs only a simple majority but our law for a Scheme of Arrangement (which is how the previous proposals were being implemented) requires a 75% majority which was a significant hurdle. Graeme Pitkethly must be feeling a little uncomfortable because he should have known the risks with the UK vote last time (he is Scottish) and yet like the now gone Chairman and CEO he was actively promoting the previous deal.
Dod
The Dutch vote also needs only a simple majority but our law for a Scheme of Arrangement (which is how the previous proposals were being implemented) requires a 75% majority which was a significant hurdle. Graeme Pitkethly must be feeling a little uncomfortable because he should have known the risks with the UK vote last time (he is Scottish) and yet like the now gone Chairman and CEO he was actively promoting the previous deal.
Dod
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5676
- Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
Maybe I wasn't clear, in which case I apologise. I worked in the City for nearly 25 years, a good proportion of which was in the Bond market.barchid wrote:dealtn
Nearly every bond issued in the euro market, be it eurodollar etc or in Euros have an official listing where bonds tend to trade by appointment once a day or so, but the real liquidity is OTC.
So it would be quite normal to list on the AEX, Luxembourg has probably the majority of euro listings and it is a very long list indeed !
What was interesting was the way they describe the Euro bonds. It makes it sound like the equity is listed in London but the Bonds are listed in Amsterdam, and the unsaid bit "so we are treating the UK and the Europe bits of the company equally, so no need for "Europe" to feel they have missed out".
In practice Euro bond listing is unimportant, and that what hasn't been said is that in all likelihood London will be the origination, issuance, and trading part of the company's bonds.
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 404
- Joined: November 30th, 2018, 2:18 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
dealtn
Sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying.
Yes, if that is the reason they stated that I guess it is a bit of window dressing, as you imply, to help make this deal acceptable to the Dutch.
Sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying.
Yes, if that is the reason they stated that I guess it is a bit of window dressing, as you imply, to help make this deal acceptable to the Dutch.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1519
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 11:16 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
I do wonder if such a demerger is on the cards in the next decade or so. It does generate cash and if they can deploy the cash from slower growing divisions into faster growing ones at a high rate of return then I am happy.barchid wrote:dealtn
Sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying.
Yes, if that is the reason they stated that I guess it is a bit of window dressing, as you imply, to help make this deal acceptable to the Dutch.
Best wishes
Mark
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1519
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 11:16 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
Thanks.PinkDalek wrote:the UK does not operate a withholding tax system (and never did).
On Dod's point, I should have re-read the announcement first!
Best wishes
Mark.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5676
- Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
What potential demerger?ADrunkenMarcus wrote:I do wonder if such a demerger is on the cards in the next decade or so. It does generate cash and if they can deploy the cash from slower growing divisions into faster growing ones at a high rate of return then I am happy.barchid wrote:dealtn
Sorry, I did misunderstand what you were saying.
Yes, if that is the reason they stated that I guess it is a bit of window dressing, as you imply, to help make this deal acceptable to the Dutch.
Best wishes
Mark
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5804
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
I think I saw in their reasoning for changing their structure that it would make spinning off a whole division somewhat easier, presumably because they would only need one set of shareholder approvals.dealtn wrote: What potential demerger?
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5676
- Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
Maybe I wasn't clear. What parts do you, or anyone, think likely to be spun off?Alaric wrote:I think I saw in their reasoning for changing their structure that it would make spinning off a whole division somewhat easier, presumably because they would only need one set of shareholder approvals.dealtn wrote: What potential demerger?
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5804
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:05 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
I though I read a reference to tea somewhere in their announcement.dealtn wrote:[ What parts do you, or anyone, think likely to be spun off?
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5344
- Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
I believe there was specific reference to the Tea business.dealtn wrote:Maybe I wasn't clear. What parts do you, or anyone, think likely to be spun off?Alaric wrote: I think I saw in their reasoning for changing their structure that it would make spinning off a whole division somewhat easier, presumably because they would only need one set of shareholder approvals.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 5676
- Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
Yes I think Tea is likely to be sold off, and that is possibly made easier by changing the structure potentially to a single seller. I don't know enough about it to see what the practical difficulties are that this might overcome.Wizard wrote:I believe there was specific reference to the Tea business.dealtn wrote: Maybe I wasn't clear. What parts do you, or anyone, think likely to be spun off?
Unilever is in the difficult situation of promoting the business as a growing one with a great future, to attract the appropriate price, but at the same time saying it isn't growth enough to be a core part of its Food business. It's been there before, and is potentially dealing with its peer group who all understand both the specific business but the dynamics of selling and buying brands.
Unilever's Tea business is predominantly a "Black Tea" business which has suffered due to two trends, neither of which appear to be likely to reverse. Firstly there has been a general trend away from "Black" to green/herbal/flavoured. Secondly within "Black" the trend has ben away from "premium" towards a more commoditised and generic product, such as supermarket own-brand.
Unilever owns PG Tips, Lyons and Lipton, which are strong brands in themselves, but it is Twinings and others that are growing. Unilever has to make the decision on whether to invest and upscale a broader Tea (and other confections) business, buying other brands and reaping synergies, or divesting to other groups better placed to benefit from that same consolidation.
I suspect the business review will lead to divestment, and a price of £5-8bn achieved, but that presumes a "normality" in business that might be some way off yet. I don't imagine they are in any particular hurry, and would rather a cash buyer. That would be easier from a buyers perspective to occur with stock markets generally higher.
The more important question, from Unilever investor's perspective is what do they do with that cash? What businesses do they want to grow, they see can have a higher ROCE than the Tea one, and will that be by brand acquisition, or not?
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4281
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:17 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
On a somewhat pedantic point of detail, that's a bit too all-encompassing: the UK does not operate a withholding tax system on dividends, but it does operate a withholding tax system. It's on the PIDs paid by REITs, which are similar to dividends in most ways and often referred to as dividends, but are not actually dividends. So I'm making this point not because of any relevance to Unilever, but just as a warning against applying the "there's no UK withholding tax system" idea too broadly to other shares.PinkDalek wrote:Not sure if that was rhetorical but the answer is no, the UK does not operate a withholding tax system (and never did).ADrunkenMarcus wrote:[Does the UK levy a withholding tax on dividends for overseas holders of UK shares?
Gengulphus
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6203
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
Equally pedantically, I've seen those such as British Land describe the tax deduction as a withholding tax but have yet to find such a description in the legislation.Gengulphus wrote:On a somewhat pedantic point of detail, that's a bit too all-encompassing: the UK does not operate a withholding tax system on dividends, but it does operate a withholding tax system. It's on the PIDs paid by REITs, which are similar to dividends in most ways and often referred to as dividends, but are not actually dividends. So I'm making this point not because of any relevance to Unilever, but just as a warning against applying the "there's no UK withholding tax system" idea too broadly to other shares.PinkDalek wrote: Not sure if that was rhetorical but the answer is no, the UK does not operate a withholding tax system (and never did).
In fact, according to https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual ... greit08005, the term property income distributions is not in the legislation.
That page also states The distributions that are paid out of the tax-exempt profits are payable under deduction of income tax at the basic rate. No mention of a withholding tax system that I can see.
Maybe I'm being too pedantic.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 6203
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
Merely to add (I should have searched earlier using withholding tax) this random link https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manual ... intm413210 from the HMRC Manual includes the following sentence:
Unlike a number of regimes, the UK has no “withholding tax” as such;
Yes, Income Tax is withheld in a number of situations (which is outside the scope of Unilever news).
Unlike a number of regimes, the UK has no “withholding tax” as such;
Yes, Income Tax is withheld in a number of situations (which is outside the scope of Unilever news).
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1519
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 11:16 am
Re: Unilever (ULVR)
Precisely.dealtn wrote:The more important question, from Unilever investor's perspective is what do they do with that cash? What businesses do they want to grow, they see can have a higher ROCE than the Tea one, and will that be by brand acquisition, or not?
Best wishes
Mark.