Chairman John Shewan said the 25cps to 35cps dividend was "getting back up to the levels we want it to get". "Although all unitholders want it to go higher, this is a long-term game."
He said he had fielded a lot of questions from unitholders about why last season's dividend was so low when global milk prices were so high, but the opposite was true. The real question unitholders should be asking was whether they had confidence in Fonterra's strategy and the New Zealand dairy industry to deliver on that, he said.
The shareholders fund has 121 million units on issue which ranged in price from $5.63 to $6.70 during the year and had a forecast yield as at Nov.10 of 4.9 per cent. Its liquidity ranking is seventh on the NZX.
When the Trading Among Farmers structure was set up it included a unilateral termination clause that Fonterra's board could invoke within two years which would have liquidated the fund within 12 months. Shewan confirmed the clause would lapse on November 30. "This was new territory and there was a level of nervousness among some parties that it would produce some weird results so Fonterra was given the ability to blow the whistle. The opposite has happened and it's working well," he said.
Another unitholder criticised the length of time it would take Fonterra to reach what Spierings called super world class compliance. He said following the botulism scare the cooperative had a four-year programme to improve its food safety standards to a level ahead of its global competitors. The cooperative was investing particularly in improving traceability which proved one of the big problems in the WPC80 scare.
Currently with the most difficult example, lactose which is used by some 900 key customers around the world, it would take 48 hours to trace back to the source, he said, and the aim is to have that reduced to just three hours by 2017.
"We need to be able to go into their systems and connect them back to ours in order to trace back within three hours. It is very complicated and requires investment in systems capability and people and reporting systems behind it," Spierings said.
When independent director Pip Dunphy stood for re-election, one unitholder questioned the need for five directors on what was essentially a passive investor with just one investment. Shewan said it was felt there was a need for three independent directors in order to have a majority over the two Fonterra-appointed ones. Apart from representing unitholders' interests to the Fonterra board, the fund management directors also had legal obligations and documentation they were required to process on behalf of unitholders in times of things like a bonus issue, he said.
The directors are paid by Fonterra, rather than by the fund.