Your assumption may also be invalid as many of those 75...

Your assumption may also be invalid as many of those 75 shareholders represent large SUPER funds which have hundred thousand to million members.

I can’t recall having an opportunity to vote on the remuneration package in my retail Super fund.

Even when we look at the following groups:
The registered holder (often a nominee or custodian);
The investment manager (usually fund managers); and
The beneficial owner (often superannuation or pension funds).

What are their clients main concerns, it’s the fees and returns and definitely not how these representatives vote.
So basically they have waived their voting rights and its purely the decision of who is managing their investments.
I believe that allocating just one vote is valid!

The second error in your argument is that you appear to make the assumption that because the larger shareholders are such that they are trying to oppress the smaller shareholders. There is no evidence of that in fact it's not a club.

Do I conclude that you don’t believe the voting system looks suspicious and lacks transparency?

Even my example of AMP in a previous post, doesn’t convince you that it appears as a self serving closed loop system.

'AMP being one of the top 20 companies holding shares in BOQ, reward their management team also through the poll voting system which is preferred by the Institution of Directors.

One could conclude, that the rewarded one's, decide how much there namesakes should be rewarded'

Really you appear to give the impression that there are two groups - the larger shareholders who all live in penthouses and stick together and the rest which are smaller minorities who cannot win.

Yes! And they want to preserve their advantage!

Its not as us small shareholders have the privilege of approaching the management team and influencing the strategy and/or the directions of the company.

It was simply an analogy to how the current remuneration system work, for clearer understanding.
When I had involvement with Unit complex, the rule didn’t involve floor space.

Do you honestly believe that you can achieve the 25% rule without one off the big boys not getting involved?

However the will of the majority does clearly control a company just that that majority is based upon the holding of investment by way of shares

So do you agree with my following comments:

It is the rewarded one's, who determine whether there namesakes deserve their rewards.

Generally, it is the large companies, who reward themselves in a similar fashion that determine the remuneration outcome.

Just to reiterate it doesn’t involve the strategy, how or which director’s are elected.

Purely, to improve transparency and encouraging greater participation.

Some Registry are researching to get rid of AGM's but lack the desire into researching why there is lack of voting participation by shareholders

Radicool Views