I only mentioned the Union because on the surface the corporate...

I only mentioned the Union because on the surface the corporate rules are more manipulative of its shareholders and is biased to one group.

There is sufficient evidences to argue that nepotism exists within the family of the Institute of Directors.
Thus ensuring that the remuneration package trend continues in upwards direction with a rare occasionional hiccups.

When I spoken to the board and KMP at any AGM that I had attend, they keep waffling on how disappointed they are of the poor participation of shareholders in the voting process.

The Corporations Act best analogy for a simple person like me, would be that it is written for the penthouse owner in a large Unit complex - I had a unit in the 1980s. The penthouse owner dictates on what and where the sinking fund is spent.

Under my proposal nothing else changes for the big end of town, except making it fairer by allowing the majority of shareholders to have a say whether the team is worth the package that the board came up with, simple as that!

I even made a suggestion to many board members about using my suggestions, purely in an advisory capacity, to no avail.

Radicool Views