Esto lo pregunto por curiosidad y ya se ha hablado otra veces pero, no es mejor comprar una acción que está en rango de precio objetivo a esperar que la acción caiga unos centimillos más?
Lo comento porque cuando empecé en esto sufría mucho esperando que mis ordenes de compra entraran y estaba pendiente todo el rato a ver si había tocado el precio y entrado la compra. Así que llegó un momento que decidí comprar cuando la acción se encontraba en un rango de precio y listo.
A ver. Si todas las acciones de la lista CQSS llevasen + 20% YTD salvo Unilever habria entrado ya varias veces en ella
Si el SP500 y el Nasdaq se estan dejando los higadillos YTD y hay chorrocientasmil empresas de la lista CQSS que llevan la misma o mas caida que Unilever y tengo liquidez finita tengo que plantearme que prefiero comprar
¿Es el equipo directivo de Unilever el mejor? ¿Son las marcas de Unilever las mejores? ¿Puede crecer organicamente un porron? ¿Sabe hacer capital allocation de primera? …
Y por eso me pongo estricto con Unilever. Lo mismo pasaria si Unilever fuese el 15% de mi cartera. Me espero a precios de absoluto derribo porque si da la campanada ya me voy a beneficiar con creces.
Venga, en este caso me has convencido 
Yo me encuentro en una situación parecida
Eso sí, cuando toca comprar pongo orden a mercado y me dejo de líos.
Yo tambien compro siempre a mercado, no por la cara de tonto que se suele quedar cuando la orden no entra por unos centimos sino porque si estamos diciendo que vamos a largo o muy largo plazo, de verdad 20 centimos arriba o abajo, incluso 50, es tan importante?
No digo que no influya, pero tanto como para quedarse sin comprar una accion que quieres tener en cartera?
No se, yo si tengo claro la empresa que quiero comprar y esta dentro de un rango de precios aceptable, pues compro y me olvido
No es una critica para nada ni de nadie, es simplemente una reflexion, es lo que yo hago, cada uno es libre de hacer y actuar como quiera, faltaria mas
Debate sobre tipos de órdenes y comisiones para cada tramo en función del broker, movido al hilo general de brokers.
Hoy está subiendo en línea recta. Algo ha ocurrido y solo lo sabe el mercado. ¿Ya no habrá oferta?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/unilever-rules-raising-68-billion-170822572.html
Al menos la oferta está limitada
Reaffirmed Jan 19, 2022
Earlier this week, shares of Unilever slumped approximately 15% following headline news of the company’s failed attempt to acquire GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) consumer healthcare business for $68 billion.
The consumer goods maker’s rejected bid was part of Unilever’s newly adopted strategy to combat years of stagnant revenue by expanding its exposure to higher-growth categories like health, beauty, and hygiene while divesting its lower-growth food products.
While Unilever’s strategy seems prudent, investors were spooked by the size of the GSK offer, which amounted to over 40% of the company’s market cap at the time of the bid and valued GSK’s healthcare business at a rich 22x EBITDA multiple, per Fitch.
Shareholders are concerned such a bold acquisition attempt would fail to create meaningful value for shareholders. The proposal also suggests management no longer believes there is a pathway back to stronger growth rates with Unilever’s current portfolio of products.
While GSK rejected the offer for being too low, a statement by Unilever to address the bid suggests the company remains determined to shift its portfolio to higher growth categories like consumer healthcare. This strategy could mean the company will increase its offer for GSK’s consumer healthcare company or simply pivot to other acquisition opportunities.
If Unilever and GSK can agree upon a transaction price, it will require a significant amount of debt financing. We estimate Unilever’s leverage ratio would stretch beyond the company’s long-maintained 2x target to at least 5x, which is well beyond our comfort level.
.png)
Source: Simply Safe Dividends
Fitch warned that such a stretched balance sheet could result in a “multi-notch downgrade” from Unilever’s current A-band rating, which management sternly wants to avoid.
To maintain the firm’s impressive credit ratings, Unilever would need to deleverage quickly after a transaction of this size. While the company plans to help fund potential acquisitions with proceeds from selling off food brands, which account for about one-third of the firm’s revenue, the dividend could come under pressure if it’s unable to divest these products promptly.
Fitch has even suggested that in this situation, Unilever may need to, at a minimum, cap its dividend growth to demonstrate the company’s ability and commitment to paying down debt to levels more consistent for an A-band rated company.
With a payout ratio near 70%, which is already about 10% higher than peers such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever would need to strike a delicate balance between divesting profitable food businesses while maintaining adequate coverage for its dividend and deleveraging needs.
.png)
Source: Simply Safe Dividends
If Unilever does reach an agreement to acquire GSK, which seems less likely given the market’s reaction, we believe management would attempt to maintain the current dividend level as it represents one of the company’s few remaining options to maintain credibility.
However, given the company would have elevated leverage and a potentially tighter payout ratio following food-product divestitures, we would likely downgrade Unilever’s Dividend Safety Score to Borderline Safe.
That said, the uncertainty tied to the failed GSK bid, at this point, is purely speculative. While the aggressive offer does invite concern, the adverse reaction by investors and the media may inspire management to temper future bids.
Moving forward, Unilever’s conservative balance sheet and reliable cash flow stream provide a solid foundation to both grow acquisitively (within reason) and keep the dividend intact. Given this solid financial footing, we are reaffirming Unilever’s Safe Dividend Safety Score.
Even so, investors should expect more news and rumors with resulting stock price volatility over the next year or two as Unilever attempts to strengthen its product portfolio. Although it’s unclear what will unfold, management seems determined to grow acquisitively.
We will continue to monitor strategic shifts made by Unilever and provide updates on any material transaction that could disrupt the dividend, which has been paid without interruption since 1966.
Note: Around the time our article was published, Unilever issued a statement saying it will not raise its bid for GSK. This development does not change our view on the company’s strategy. However, it adds more confidence that the dividend remains safe.
Unilever es una gran empresa,la cual funciona muy bien… Ademas nunca está realmente barata para comprar.Incluso a precios actuales no está barata.
¿Necesita hacer semejante compra a Glaxo?
Yo creo que no, es verdad que la parte de Glaxo es buena,y seria un impulso a largo para UNILEVER.
El negocio de Glaxo puede esperar.Yo esperaría a que Glaxo tenga problemas financieros para lanzar una oferta por su negocio. Igual esto nunca ocurre… No pasa nada se sigue mejorando e innovando en el negocio de siempre.
La espera tiene su recompensa.
Pregunta, que ya estará contestada…pero es que 900 y pico mensajes de post 
¿Si se compra en Holanda, al estar la sede en London aplican retención en origen(15%)al cobro de dividendos?
0% de retencion en origen
Si, esta contestada.
No, retencion UK, 0 en origen
Es mas facil asi 
Ok, muchas gracias a los dos 
Después de opar BATS ahora toca Unilever 
El amigo Terry sigue a lo suyo … cual eficiente sastre continua cortándole un traje a la dirección de Unilever.
Mi insiste, esa dirección huele a zombi …
Un saludo.
Déjalo, Terry, ya está muerto.
Como no cambien, no solo ya la política de gestión, sino lo que transmiten con su gestión, no les puede pasar otra cosa que no sea un crecimiento exponencial de los enanos. Esta gerencia transmite debilidad en la gestión, y de este modo les va terminar tosiendo hasta el conserje en el ascensor cuando suban al despacho.
Unilever investors call AGM vote to push for healthy food targets
By Simon Jessop and Siddharth Cavale
LONDON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - A group of investors in Unilever said on Thursday they had filed a fresh resolution urging the company to fix a “crucial blind spot” in its strategy and set ambitious targets to sell healthier foods.
The resolution by an 11-strong investor group with $215 billion in assets, including Candriam, Actiam and Greater Manchester Pension Fund, calls on Unilever to disclose the current proportion of sales linked to healthier products. It also urges the company to set a target to “significantly increase” that share by 2030, and publish an annual review of their progress.
While Unilever, owner of the Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, Hellmann’s mayonnaise and Pot Noodle brands, is seen as a leader in sustainable business by many funds, the investors said increasing regulations around health meant a failure to act could hit its finances.
Governments in many of the company’s main markets have introduced taxes on products high in sugar or calories as obesity levels rise.
“Unilever has long been a sustainability leader. Some even criticise it for being too focused on ESG. Yet the health profile of the food and drink products it sells remains a blind spot," said Ignacio Vazquez, a senior manager at responsible investment NGO ShareAction, which co-ordinated the resolution.
British fund manager, Terry Smith, whose Fundsmith vehicle is a top-10 Unilever investor, lambasted Unilever last week for being “obsessed” with promoting its sustainability credentials at the expense of performance.
"By voicing their support for this resolution, Unilever’s investors can help to drive change at the heart of one of the biggest foods and drink manufacturers in the world while also shielding themselves from regulatory and reputational risks,” Vazquez said.
The move follows similar calls for action at last year’s AGM, which ShareAction said had not resulted in much progress.
While Unilever said that in 2020, 61% of its food and drink sales were of products with “high nutritional standards”, the investors said they questioned its metrics.
“It is key that a company with such a scale of leverage and capacity demonstrates efforts to set its targets and disclosures on the basis of government-endorsed nutrient profiling models where it operates,” Sophie Deleuze, lead ESG analyst of engagement & voting at Candriam, told Reuters.
Deleuze urged Unilever to conduct and outline their risk profile in countries where it operates, factoring in aspects including existing and upcoming regulatory pressures, the health profile of customers, and their product preferences as a basis for reformulation.
The move comes at a turbulent time for the company, which late on Wednesday effectively abandoned a 50 billion pound ($68.11 billion) proposal to buy the consumer health unit of GlaxoSmithKline.
Promoting healthy food and drink has become a hot-button issue for investors. Late last year, investors managing 12.4 trillion in assets urged policymakers to use fiscal and regulatory measures to help fix what they described as a “global nutrition crisis”
Un saludo.
Me parece que ya se cual va a ser la proxima venta del Fundsmith
