"Please give me examples where the activist shareholder spirit was able to get ASX listed companies to make change based on their shareholder thoughts, recommendations and expectations of the board."
I have been personally involved in numerous cases over the course of my investing career where I- acting either alone, or in conjunction with a few other shareholders - have made representation to the boards of directors of the companies we own.
In some cases the issues were not overly critical, such as requesting de-activation of DRPs, matters of accounting treatment, raising standards of financial reporting and levels of disclosure, compliance, AGM protocols (that sort of thing); while some issues where far more significant and structural, such as the composition of boards and board independence, performance of directors, executive remuneration, financial performance, shareholder value creation, M&A developments, capital allocation, risk management.
Of course, some of these engagement processes took longer than others, and some required more resources to be deployed than others, but in every single case, the desired shareholder outcome was achieved without the need, even once, for an Extraordinary General Meeting to convened. And this is despite, in some cases, the required response being significant, including the disengagement of directors and key senior executives.
Most boards are proactive and accountable, but - on balance - where they are not, it is not difficult to hold them to account. Modern-day company constitutions and governance policies readily facilitate it.
"Unlike you, I choose my battles, my time way to precious trying to straighten up incompetent management and boards (I am happy with MSB)"
All power to you for allocating your time as you see fit.
I happen to believe that shareholders becoming more activist (and I'm not talking about churlish stuff like badgering company IR people with "When's is the next announcement? We need some news flow to get the share price up.."; I'm talking about well-considered, well-research, and factually-based activism that gets to the heart of shareholder value creation) will only be a good thing for the investing world in totality.
"and more importantly can I, you or any shareholder do a better job than MSB are, the answer for me is NO. If you answer yes get a placard go to there office and start protesting, if you have the time, or call the company and apply for a position where you can have more influence on change and culture."
This comment of yours speaks volumes about the misapprehension you have around shareholder engagement and responsible investing.
Because, if shareholders perceive the boards, of companies they own, to be under-performing, then the alternatives are not confined to those shareholders putting themselves up for election as directors, or making themselves available to be employed as agents of change.
"Have you ever run a business or managed people."
Not on any meaningful scale, no.
But I have spent a good 25 years closely watching and studying how others do it... some of them do it very well, but most of them, sadly, not very well at all. Very badly, in fact.
And when businesses are badly managed, people get hurt as a result. (And not just shareholders, but other innocent people, such as employees and suppliers.)
Which is why I am an advocate of business owners becoming more involved in providing constructive feedback to the managers of the businesses they own... to encourage the virtuous cycle of continuous improvement in the overall performance of highly-remunerated company executives, for the betterment of all stakeholders in companies.
Better boardroom outcomes would be good for society, don't you think?
Expand
(20min delay)