Misguided Self Worth

Out off 94,827 shareholders 75 shareholders with holdings over 100 thousands shares have 92% of the voting power under the poll system of voting.

Thus it is a farce for the board to claim that the majority of shareholders support the directions the board and management team are taking the company.

I’m unlikely to attend this years AGM because I have been ordered not to attend by the supreme commander of the household as our kitchen is being renovated on that day.

About 3 weeks ago I asked Link Market to supply me info about the 2016 AGM relating to the remuneration voting result.
I asked them if it was possible to use their computer system to produce a model of the the percentages that voted for and against the 2016 remuneration resolution if every shareholder and entities were only entitled to one vote each.
Similar to a 'Show of Hands' concept but not being compelled to be present at the AGM.
So far I haven’t heard from Link Market and I got the gut feeling that I’m unlikely to get the data.

Last year I spoke to the Chairman and the company secretary that such an extra column would give the management team unbiased feedback - even if it was used for advisory purposes only - covering a broader number of shareholders opinions instead of the 100 thousand plus shareholders.

If the poll voting column and let’s call it the SoH column is in the affirmative, then the management team deserve their rewards. If there is a great divergence in opinions, than it would be compelling argument for the board to investigate and modify the remuneration package.

Under the current system, Opinion Poll companies would laugh at the boards who make their decisions purely based on category bias of the 100 thousand plus club, and in the majority of companies cases,  purely on the top 20 shareholders

General its not in the interest of the majority of the top 20 shareholders to make changes to the remuneration system as they reward themselves in a similar fashion, by this perpetually spiraling upwards reward system.

In this years top 20 I noticed that AMP - I have shares in this company - is included and I know that they also have misguided opinions of their self worth.

Last year after trying to promote this extra column the company sent me an email stating that if I was a large shareholder wouldn’t I expect to have a greater say then a smaller shareholders.
I retorted that if "I owned a penthouse in a block of units, I should dictate to the other unit holders where and how the body corporate funds should be spent". Never got a response back.

The registry companies only research on AGM’s is concentrated on the cost of running them. Basically using any arguments to cease running them due to poor attendance etc.
No research has been carried out why there trend off attendance - could be due to the standards of refreshments deteriorating, just joking - or poor participation of any form of voting.

Apparently, only about 5% of eligible proxy voters bother too vote.

Every yaboo  knows why, except these intellectuals twits!

Radicool Views