KARACHI: Unilever Pakistan Limited posted profit-after-tax (PAT) at Rs4.1 billion, translating into earning per share (eps) at Rs308 for the year ended Dec 31, 2011.

The profit rose 25 per cent over Rs3.3 billion or eps at Rs246 earned the earlier year.

The board of directors recommended final cash dividend at Rs202 or 404 per cent per share.

Combined with the interim cash dividend at Rs105 already paid, the total cash payout per share for 2011 amounted to Rs307 (2010: Rs248).

Aggregate profit distributed by the company in dividend amounted to 99.7 per cent in the year under review.

The Unilever share of the par value of Rs50, trades on the stock exchange at Rs5,313 -- probably the second highest quoted scrip after Nestle.

The equity is tightly held and only a few shares change hands during a week. On Friday, the stock gained Rs13 to close at Rs5,313 on only 254 shares.

Due to its illiquidity, the Lever fortunes are not of much moment to shareholders at the stock market and most analysts do not follow the company. But being one of the largest fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) company in the country, the results may be of interest to economists. That is proved by the point raised by the directors in their brief review released with the accounts on Friday: “Operating conditions in Pakistan remained tough as economic growth for the second consecutive year was marred by floods, prolonged power outages, rising commodity costs and adverse security environment.

Regardless, consumer demand remained resilient”, the directors asserted. Unilever further strengthened its foothold by launching seven new brands -- the highest ever in a single year.

Turnover for the year under review was up 16 per cent to Rs51.9 billion, from Rs44.7 billion. Gross profit increased to Rs18.1 billion, from Rs 14.6 billion.

The Home and Personal Care segment continued to deliver double digit growth in key categories; laundry, hair care and skin care.

In the Beverages, sales grew mainly on the back of price increases following inflationary material cost environment, compounded by government levies.

Directors complained: “Smuggled tea continues to pose a threat to branded players; high government levies lead to high consumer price, deny the formal sector fuel to grow and provide smugglers incentive to evade tax.”