Blue, I have no funds, just individual stocks. Having said that, a good mix of them are in Terry Smith's Fund, Nick Train's and non in Neil Woodford's apart from IMB, and AA after it crashed and the CEO punched someone, so I bought it at half price -- could just as easily dump it on a decent recovery though. Oh and Next bought close to the bottom.
The reason for self selection is I don't want to pay annual management charges on the basis that if I'm going to lose money I'm not paying someone to do it when I'm perfectly capable of losing it mesen !!
Also there are stocks in some of the funds I wouldn't touch, like Pearson in Nick Train's fund, Diageo after the Casamigo's fiasco and one or two in Terry Smith's fund and just about the whole of Neil Woodford's 3 funds.
It would be interesting to know how many of you guys prefer to invest in the likes of the Finsbury Growth and Income Trust spreading the risk as opposed to stand alone shares. I chose the latter as am a bit of a gambler.
"the only one I hold at the moment which is a very recent repurchase is GSK"
Well it's better to be in on it at 13XX than 17XX, the price I sold at. It looks like a long drawn out drag until the divi is finally cut, but it may not of course.
I see several drawbacks for GSK, divi cover, stretched balance sheet, Advair off patent still to feel the full force of competition and vaccines also getting competitive threats.
I also can't see the historic margins being maintained on Sensodyne, given every man and his dog has a sensitivity based paste option now on the market.
The yield has been frozen for years and it's gotten progressively less affordable.
I'm with Bill and LK, wherever the old chap is, on DGE's foolish use of capital. It'll need to fall a lot to get bought again I'm afraid.
As quite long EMs, rightly or wrongly, I can live with a 2% premium to NAV on FEET.
Very fair points re ULVR, given the quality its not as expensive as I thought against the market though I make the 2017 yield on it 3.2% but maybe its 3.4% 2018. I have no currency views, too difficult for a bear of little brain like me.
On the stocks you mention, the only one I hold at the moment which is a very recent repurchase is GSK, encouraged by the number of bearish brokers at the time in December. They have become a tad more positive since and I hold the stock none too confidently, though I rate the chairman, former work colleague who went on to great things, if not so much the newish CEO.
I am hoping DGE will disappoint on Thursday as I like to hold it, and it could be a bid situation if Train is right about more mega deals. I am influenced wrongly by liking some of their malts and hoping that Ivan may not want the kind of flak he got over what he paid for Casamigos, assuming he noticed it which he might not have.
Derisking sounds right to me, its been a bit too easy recently.
Old P - your comments hit me in the ear like a tuning fork.
I was this week looking at Terence's web site and comments on FEET and have been thinking of parking some cash in it now that I've derisked my portfolio of said munters (GSK, AZN, DGE (possible munter in the making if Ivan keeps his hands in the till), Burberry (not a munter but the management strategy change forced me to leave - so far a good decison), Devro (could get skinned); RIO and Glencore (cyclical munters).
I wished I'd stepped in earlier as it went up 24.5% in 2017
Games -- Hindsight eh? -- Anybody know where I can buy some?
It would appear so, but then again I did grant him the benefit of the doubt on his minimal trading and few and far between changes to his portfolio.
Harsh or not, camera or not, I'd still call it quirky.
It seems RB got a pretty big hike on Friday which takes me back in profit, but it's unclear why, apart from a late upward surge in the market on Friday afternoon.
ULVR's position could do the exact opposite of what old beardy at Questor thinks if the US $ keeps weakening ( a boost to emerging market debt) and sterling does the same against emerging market currencies. Then again, I never had beardy down as being that swift of thought.
Unilever's valuation seems OK at it's current level, with an above average yield of 3.4% and and above that of the index. The quality of ULVR would have me judge that it's yield should be less than the yield on the index so it's not out of court and conservatively priced compared to peers - mindful of the fact they too could be a bit expensive of late. The balance sheet is fine, the debt not too onerous and still a relatively bright future provided Polman doesn't start acting like Ivan and squanders shareholders cash on foolhardy projects.
Call me an old judgemental cuss and while I'm at it there are quite a few questioning the ability of the wooded one. Looking at the quality of the responses to the questions on his blogs it appears his staff have very little understanding or training on the subject they were employed to represent.
Interesting talk by Train, thanks for that. Re ULVR, it seems to me he likes it mostly for the EM exposure, a strong argument, but one can play that through other stocks like DGE, another fave of his. I don't hold either currently because I think the valuations look rather full, and not everyone is a bull of ULVR cf today's Questor which says sell on the basis that sales growth is slowing and its more difficult to push through price increases with retailers. I don't think Train or LTHs will rush to sell.
FWIW, I think a way to play the EM story might be FEET which I plan to hold for a long time run by Terry Smith. It has underwhelmed so far but I don't mind that - part of the reason was he won't touch banks and commodities both of which have had a strong recovery recently.
"He comes across as a bit quirky and laboured in speech, but his track record is up there with top guys..."
A trifle harsh, Games... you'd hardly expect to have a fund manager trained at RADA. And speaking into an inanimate camera, rather than to an audience, ain't easy at all...
Some interesting points, of course, though we've "heard that song before"... and doesn't give us much of a clue as to where we go from here. Other than his expectation for more, and more major, M&A... I hope he's right, but I will believe it when I see it, I've been waiting a while now. And unlike the Trainspotter, I am not particularly possessive when it comes to holding on, if and when someone does come calling for my IMB, my ITV, my VOD, my AZN ... (etc etc).
Decent track record for sure, though not without blips, and I wonder how well he'll fare if (as?) and when the market mood shifts from Growth/Momentum and back to Value? These have been very favourable times for his particular investment "style" - I don't doubt he will adapt, but how successfully?
On that note - GBP/USD pushing up near 1.38... I wonder when stocks such as ULVR get hit by FX shock? At the very least, earnings forecasts will surely have to come down - for FY18, if not FY17. You could say that general "expectations", as reflected in the SP, have already come down for RB, and are on the way down for ULVR - but much less so for DGE, for whom - lest we forget - some 80-90% of all growth last year came from FX. Swings and roundabouts... and I worry that the market is turning a blind eye.
Maybe this is the year that I do finally get to own ULVR? Or RB... though they have their own, ex-FX issues. Or maybe even DGE... though I fear that is unlikely...
We could be witnessing the bond proxy stocks rolling over - the high price you now have to pay for a small level of 'reliable' growth looks to be rolling over. Sectors of the market left behind by the 10 year rally are catching up. Normally the time to get out is when the leaders of the rally start to go down while the laggards catch up. IMO only. Might be wrong but come Monday i'm also selling Diageo i think.
Point about Unilever.com is interesting.
My son buys hid catfood, washing up liquid, toilet roll, dishwasher and washing machine tabs etc on line with Amazon Prime. The brand he buys is Amazon... for service delivery.
That brand loyalty will have profound implications for ULVR, P&G etc
Today is a sad day for me - i have sold my Unilever shares. I said to myself recently if this went below £40 i would sell so I have. Doesn't feel good. My thinking was other than i need some pennies for a house...they've had the bid, had the buyback, had the currency boost and had the sale of spreads....so what can push the price higher. Linked to that I have no idea about all these brands they are buying and the price being paid. Its all happening v quickly which surely increases the risk.
Im probably completely wrong and they immediately go to £50.
"And how much margin does Tesco - or Amazon, or Joe Schmo corner store - make from selling them on?"
Good question - the wholesale typical markup is what ?% of the retail price?
I'd imagine there is plenty of scope for direct sales, irrespective of the costs to set up delivery options, as the wholesale price is significantly below the retail .
If Unilever don't do this the likes of Amazon will do it via it's competitors and they will undercut the margins across the sector -- it will have an impact.
"""And of course, there is no point in having one single online presence as Unilever.com - Unilever as a brand has no end-market presence, no-one knows who they are! You ask 100 ordinary (ie. non-stock-market-literate)"""
This is not difficult, Unilever already label every product with the "U" symbol and many have got to know this. A simple add campaign pointing people to the web site with a listing of the main products -- promotional follow up adds taking people to the site for special offers on some key brands with bulk order discounts.
It wouldn't take long for people to become very familiar with it.
No I'm happy that Unilever is great at R&D and product development, but the changes tell me that this isn't going to be enough in a changing world.
Unilever isn't taking the best advantage of the media opportunities to sell it's products in my view.
"But if ULVR is going hoity toity high margin discretionaries, selling on the internet is the way to go."
But Games, you are still talking predominantly small-ticket, regular-repeat-purchase units - high margin or not. And punters can buy them from most existing retailers, big and small, in store or online. And how much margin does Tesco - or Amazon, or Joe Schmo corner store - make from selling them on??
No, the vast bulk of the margin is to be made in the products' development, then manufacture, then distribution and supply... Sure, ULVR could maybe make slightly higher-still margins from going 'vertically-integrated' and retailing them out online - but retail would require new (and different) people and processes, new systems and networks, new logistics infrastructure and expertise. All of this means new, incremental costs (operating and capital) - yet how much incremental return would they really earn on this extra capital employed?
And of course, there is no point in having one single online presence as Unilever.com - Unilever as a brand has no end-market presence, no-one knows who they are! You ask 100 ordinary (ie. non-stock-market-literate) people, at least 90 will never have heard of Unilever, but go through their cupboards and fridge/freezer and they'll probably have 10, 12, 15 Unilever products tucked away. So they would have to develop, and fund, not one but dozens and dozens of online "presences" and capabilities, brand by brand.
No, it's a "BLUFF" from me! Their better chance of earning (further) decent ROCE (on an incremental basis, the only true 'ROCE' that matters) lies in ongoing R&D, new product development, innovation with existing brands, and creativity and clout in marketing and advertising, through all available channels (including online), on a brand-by-brand basis. All of which is what they already spend a large proportion of their time and money doing.
And/or they can just chase higher incremental ROCE through persistent M&A expansion - whether small scale or something a bit more meaty. Higher risk, of course - and perhaps too much so for some shareholders (with good reason) - but at least the potential rewards are there...
Its very simple - spread sales are falling - the market has shifted so , although they may be v profitable and high return the future is poor and thus returns are likely to fall UNLV reckon the future best lies in personal care which , I happen to agree with ....as its growing , high margin and captures the consumers mind unlike the distinctly unattractive Flora. Polman has done a great job here and the future looks bright .
Think about it wouldnt you rather be valued on a sexy rating like LOreal ?
"But not sure exactly what online strategy you suggest?! Looks to me like their "strategy" is spot on, ie, let all the retailers (including Amazon) scrabble strenuously around flogging the pots and packs at margins of 2-4% (if they are lucky)"
Bill -- simples -- given that they are offloading all the low cost low margin stuff anyhow, they can rely on the supermarkets to take that on with the new owners.
But if ULVR is going hoity toity high margin discretionaries, selling on the internet is the way to go.
"I don't see any more transparancy, an online strategy, and they are still offloading good products (less discretionary products) at unattractive prices -- the recent sale of spreads is a prime example... The recent changes at Unilever are all about Polman protecting his pride, position and legacy. Corporates in the hands of such are at risk."
Definitely agree with you, Games, on transparency - the disclosure culture feels distinctly Pravdaesque - and on Polman... I still feel he has a reckoning coming for his behaviour during the Kraft episode. Not convinced on Spreads - didn't look a great price at all, sure, but I think it will prove a well-timed dumping... I challenge the idea of plastic spread as "good" product, the market has moved away from it, probably decisively, and it leaves busted brands, however old and "established" they may be.
But not sure exactly what online strategy you suggest?! Looks to me like their "strategy" is spot on, ie, let all the retailers (including Amazon) scrabble strenuously around flogging the pots and packs at margins of 2-4% (if they are lucky), while they themselves rake in 20% (give or take) by keeping them appropriately supplied and concentrating capital and effort on their far-reaching and formidable distribution and supply networks and capabilities.
Maybe if the internet, eventually, disintermediates the retail function entirely they will have to think again, but no sign of that as yet... the likes of Amazon have disrupted it but certainly not rendered it redundant. Retail networks and channels are entirely different, in scope and nature, from factory-gate supply chains, and ULVR have a very clear sense of where they fit in... can't imagine Polman or any of his (inevitably well-heeled) successors being enthralled by the idea of flogging two tubs of Marmite and a box of Persil to Barry Bloggs from Bolton, and then trying to work out how to get them to him without losing a packet (of profit, not soapflakes).
Where ULVR need to be "online" is in people's faces and eyeballs, through their marketing and branding activities... and they are (and always have been) perfectly competent here, even in your "changing world" - though this is also where your WPP (et al) come in. Albeit they will have to stay on top of it to thrive... and that goes for Sir Martin as well is Saint Paul!
Valueman -- it is indeed, has anything changed though?
I don't see any more transparancy, an online strategy, and they are still offloading good products (less discretionary products) at unattractive prices -- the recent sale of spreads is a prime example.
The recent changes at Unilever are all about Polman protecting his pride, position and legacy. Corporates in the hands of such are at risk.
Don't get me wrong Unilever is a great company and I'd be a reluctant seller, but they need to get a shift on with changing to meet a changing world.
This article highlights the areas of focus Unilever is adopting to boost it's sales and margin's.
What worries me most are three things, 1. a move to more and more discretionary items irrespective of the margin boost, and 2. the lack of an online sales strategy. 2 seems particularly worrying with the growing threat of Amazon et al in the retail space.
3. The lack of transparancy in it's reporting - I want to know how much they are paying for stuff, and how well their product departments are doing.
The "sustainable practices thingy" is all well and good but if your average punter becomes too lazy to go out and buy physically, or he's too busy running his own online business, or he's simply too smart to waste his or her time to visit physical shops, how are Unilever to sell it's new wonderful products produced from it's changing R&D focus?
This worries me a tad as ULVR is still 3.56% of my wad.
Yes, I think we all agree LKH is sadly missed for his astute pithy comments and gentle sense of humour. Unilever appears to have lost a little of its gloss but I guess the sale of the Spread business was already built into the price. Nevertheless in past years the SP usually ends on a strong note and I expect this year to be no exception, especially in this increasingly uncertain world of ours.
"Unilever has agreed to sell its margarine and spreads business, which include Flora and ProActiv, to private equity giant KKR for 6.8bn ($8bn, £6bn)..."
Mildly disappointing, I would say... for all the ongoing commentary (doubtless, carefully fed into the media) on what looked like a fairly competitive bidding process, they get no better a price than the one they first thought of.
And of course - as per previous posts on here - we have little idea on the "exit" financial metrics... so hard to say whether it's a fairly low price for a business still churning out a decent quantum of profit and cash flow, or actually a very good price for a business where financial performance is showing serious secular decline.
FWIW I think they are well out of it, the outlook for margarine is pretty dire IMHO (at least in most developed markets) and while I doubt the multiples do look great, every chance the price they would get for it would only go steadily lower over time. KKR are doubtless getting it cheap enough to make something of it... Will be interesting to watch what they do, but I wouldn't want to be working for Flora going forward!
In a pretty thin statement (in line with the usual ULVR economy with disclosure),the following stood out for me:
"Unilever intends to return the net cash realised to shareholders, unless more value-creating acquisition alternatives arise."
Not sure if this is new? At least as an explicit commitment... if so, should be enough to offset any consensus disappointment that the protracted auction process has not secured a more premium price.
PS. I have to say, I am sure that LKH - as a confirmed Spreads supporter - would have disagreed with some, if not all of the above, and I remain saddened that he is not here to say so in his usual eloquent, but efficient style...
Italys antitrust agency said on Wednesday it had fined Unilevers Italian unit more than 60m (£53m) for abusing its dominant position in the countrys ice cream market.
It said Unilever had abused its position in single-wrapped so-called impulse ice creams, intended for immediate consumption, which it sells through its Algida brand.
The local unit of the worlds biggest ice cream maker said in a statement it rejected the agencys conclusion and would appeal.
Italian authorities started the probe in 2013 when a small producer of organic fruit lollies called La Bomba accused Unilever of forcing local retailers not to sell its popsicles.
La Bomba, based in the seaside town of Rimini, said Unilever had struck deals with operators of beach resort, bars and campsites to exclusively sell the bigger firms ice creams.
La Bomba makes less than 1m a year.
Italians ate 5.15bn-worth of ice cream in 2015, according to the antitrust agency, and sales of individually-wrapped treats were worth 780m.
The market for ice cream (to be consumed) outside the home is a highly competitive one in which artisan and industrial, bulk and packaged products compete for the consumers attention in a fragmented landscape that is like no other in Europe, Unilever said.
Selling the Magnum, Carte dOr and Cornetto ice cream brands as well as other food, home and personal care goods, Unilever makes around 1.4bn a year in Italy.
Unilever can appeal the ruling at a regional court.
"London/Rotterdam, November 28th 2017 - Unilever will hold its annual investor event on November 29th and 30th 2017. The presentations will include an update on Unilever's 2020 programme to accelerate sustainable shareholder value creation. Connected 4 Growth continues to progress well and is expected to deliver growth ahead of our markets, which in current market conditions is expected to translate into underlying sales growth of 3-5% per year between now and 2020.
The 5-S supply chain savings and zero-based budgeting programmes are delivering faster than planned, and the integration of Foods and Refreshment into a single business unit is, equally, progressing well. These actions enable reinvestment behind our brands for growth, and provide momentum towards our underlying operating margin target of 20% by 2020.
The outlook for 2017 is reconfirmed. We continue to expect underlying sales growth within the
3 to 5% range, an improvement in underlying operating margin of at least 100 basis points, and strong cash flow delivery.
Unilever's portfolio continues to be developed at an accelerated pace to ensure the platforms are in place for long-term value creation by being in attractive market segments and sales channels. So far this year, nine acquisitions have been completed or announced. The exit from our spreads business via sale or de-merger remains fully on track.
At the same time, Unilever has also continued to simplify its capital structure and ensure it remains at the forefront of good corporate governance. This includes the acquisition of the outstanding Unilever N.V. preference shares. As previously announced, the Board is conducting a review of the dual-headed legal structure.
This review is progressing well and the Board considers that unification with a single share class would be in the best interests of Unilever and its shareholders as a whole, providing greater ongoing strategic flexibility for value-creating portfolio change.
Unilever is a geographically diversified business with a very small corporate centre compared to the scale of its global operations. Reflecting this, following any unification, we envisage one lean, agile corporate centre.
The review by the Board is continuing and the outcome will be announced in due course. Whatever the outcome, upon any unification, the Board intends to:
· Maintain listings in the Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States
· Continue to apply both the UK and Dutch corporate governance codes
· Terminate the N.V. preference shares
These actions would be subject to the appropriate approvals.
Unilever: In Need Of A Catalyst
Nov.27.17 | About: Unilever Plc (UL)
- Unilevers Q3 trading statement brought a halt to the rally sparked by its post-Kraft Heinz commitments to cut costs and sell its spreads business.
- Its current CEO has announced his intention to retire, and a search for a replacement has been launched.
- The shares are not cheap relative to Unilevers growth prospects, and while the consensus calls for solid gains next year and in 2019, this seems optimistic.
When Kraft Heinz (NYSE:KHC) made its abortive bid for Unilever (UL) (UN), and Unilever subsequently committed itself to accelerate its restructuring, it sparked a considerable rally in its stock. Its Q3 trading statement brought that to an abrupt halt, and it is probably unlikely to resume in the short term.
It is not that the Q3 report was really so shockingly bad. It is just that the quarter showed more of the same weak trends in developed world volumes and prices. Although emerging markets (accounting for 58% of Q3 revenue) continued their gradual improvement, it was uneven. Unilever does not release full earnings statements for its first and third quarters; it only offers a discussion of revenue trends. As a result, we will have to wait until the release of its annual results to learn anything about the success (or otherwise) of its promise to investors to step up its efforts at cost containment efforts.
Press reports suggest that the major item on Unilevers restructuring agenda sale of its margarine business is proceeding apace. Spreads below average revenue growth explains why it is destined for disposal, but its stand-alone profitability has never been disclosed. Price talk of 5.8 billion (and the reported interest of various buyout firms) for a business with revenue of about 2.9 billion suggests that it is a fairly muscular cash cow, if not a rapidly growing one. Unilevers repurchase of the minority interest in Unilever South Africa in exchange for its southern African spreads business (South Africa, Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia and Botswana) plus cash, effectively valued it at 13.4X 2016 EBITDA. This also implies that spreads are solidly profitable.
And Unilever continues to make smart, targeted acquisitions: TAZO® (tea), Carver Korea (skin care), Mãe Terra (food), Pukka Herbs (tea), Weiss (ice cream), Hourglass (cosmetics) and Quala (personal care and home care), all since May (some of these have yet to close). It also has taken steps to rationalize its capital by repurchasing some rather expensive preferred shares, at a cost of 450 million.
It is small comfort to Unilever that it is not alone among consumer staples producers in facing challenges. Food retailers never shy about squeezing suppliers face ever more competition, putting Unilever et al. even further on the back foot. And as food retailing fragments, big brands lose shelf space at both premium and discount chains. They make up severely limited portions of Whole Foods, Trader Joes, Aldis or Lidls (all private) product offerings, and other retailers, including Wal-Mart (NYSE:WMT), are expanding their own-label selections. Pharmacy chains continue to consolidate, regaining some of the bargaining power they have lost to supermarket pharmacies. Consumer loyalty has weakened, so major brands are often wrong-footed by small producers (as happened to Unilevers Ben & Jerrys® this summer).
Many of Unilevers recent acquisitions are designed to address the threat of changing tastes and disruptive newcomers. The jury is still out, I think, on whether this strategy can really work. In other sectors, such as beer, majors buying upstarts has tended to stunt the upstarts growth, not least through robbing them of the caché associated with being an upstart. It is enormously difficult for makers of mass-market brands to be cool. Others, which I suspect are more certain
8.3m!! Right, where's my cv; I should be able to blag my way through for a year or so. Wonder if these guys get a probationary period where they have to suffer on 1 million or so until they prove they're worth the full amount.
The consumer goods behemoth Unilever has drafted in a top firm of headhunters to help board members identify a successor to Paul Polman, its veteran chief executive.
Sky News can reveal that the Anglo-Dutch giant behind Dove shampoo, Lynx deodorant and Ben & Jerry's ice cream has begun working with Egon Zehnder International, the search consultant, in a move which lays the foundations for Mr Polman's eventual departure.
The news will ignite a race for one of the top jobs in the global consumer products industry, although a formal recruitment process involving prospective candidates has yet to get under way.
A firm date for the retirement of Mr Polman, who has run Unilever since January 2009 and was paid 8.3m last year, has not yet been set, although some people close to the company expect him to step down in about 18 months.
Egon Zehnder's work is said to be focused at this stage on aiding the Unilever board's preparedness for a formal search process.
The company's stable of brands is one of the most admired in the global consumer goods sector, including Domestos, Surf, Hellmann's, Magnum, Brut and Toni & Guy.
Toast with Marmite, a Unilever brand, sits on a kitchen counter in Manchester, Britain October 13, 2016.
The preparations for Mr Polman's exit come at a time of significant change for the group, which is in the process of seeking a buyer for the £6.5bn unit that is home to spreads brands such as Flora and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter.
Earlier this year, Unilever became a short-lived takeover target for Kraft Heinz, the American company behind some of the world's biggest-selling food brands.
The £115bn approach, which was backed by Warren Buffett, the multibillionaire "Sage of Omaha", fell apart less than 72 hours after it emerged, amid hostility from the Unilever board.
Government ministers also expressed concern about potential cost-cutting measures that could be adopted by a Kraft Heinz management team known for its ruthless efforts to cut corporate overheads.
Since fending off that approach, Mr Polman has announced a string of measures to improve Unilever's performance, including the merger of its two main food businesses - a move which recently prompted the transfer of 140 UK-based jobs to Rotterdam.
Generic shot of PG Tips, made by FTSE 100 company Unilever
Image: PG Tips is a Unilever brand
A much more significant shift from the UK is also on the cards as Unilever moves towards axeing its dual corporate structure in the UK and Netherlands.
Analysts expect it to announce next month that it will move to a single Dutch headquarters, a decision which would be of enormous symbolic resonance at a time when Britain is attempting to demonstrate its economic resilience with Brexit looming.
Mr Polman has also been active as an acquirer of assets since the Kraft Heinz approach, buying businesses including Carver Korea, a skincare business in North Asia, for 2.27bn in September.
A former Nestle executive, Mr Polman has also played a leading role in efforts to boost the sustainability agenda in the corporate world, frequently appearing on public platforms to exhort his peers to do more to embrace environmental and social goals.
A formal search for his successor will ultimately be led by Marijn Dekkers, Unilever's chairman since last year, and will include fellow board members such as Vittorio Colao, the Vodafone chief executive.
Possible internal candidates to succeed Mr Polman may include Graeme Pitkethly, the company's finance director, although an extensive international search is almost certain to be carried out.
Unilever's London-listed shares have enjoyed a strong run during the last 12 months, trading up by more than a third to give the company a market capitalisation at Thursday's closing price of almost exactly £125bn.
Important message from the Financial Conduct Authority:
Posting inside information that is not public knowledge, or information that is false or misleading, may constitute market abuse.
This could lead to an unlimited fine and up to seven years in prison.
If you have any information, concerns or queries about market abuse, click here.
The content of the messages posted represents the opinions of the author, and does not represent the opinions of Interactive Investor Trading Limited or its affiliates and has not been approved or issued by Interactive Investor Trading Limited.
You should be aware that the other participants of the above discussion group are strangers to you and may make statements which may be misleading, deceptive or wrong.
Please remember that the value of investments or income from them may go down as well as up and that the past performance of an investment is not a guide to its performance in the future.
The discussion boards on this site are intended to be an information sharing forum and is not intended to address your particular requirements.
Whilst information provided on them can help with your investment research you need to consider carefully whether you should make (or refraining from making) investment or other decisions based on what you see without doing further research on investments you are interested in.
Participating in this forum cannot be a substitute for obtaining advice from an appropriate expert independent adviser who takes into account your circumstances and specific investment needs in selected investments that are appropriate for you.