Originally posted by Radicool
Proxies are there for people who don't have a direct interest and serve a practical purpose, anyone with a direct interest in the company and votes with that interest has their voice heard.
Proxies are also for people who have a direct interest but can’t/choose not too attend the AGM.
To refresh your memory, when filling out the voting form, the option is to place an X in the box for the Chair, to act as proxy on the shareholders behalf.
Proxies are there for people who don't have a direct interest and serve a practical purpose, ....
Your comment is normally applicable for the following group:
The registered holder (often a nominee or custodian);
The investment manager (usually fund managers); and
The beneficial owner (often superannuation or pension fund
Their clients main concern is the fees and returns, and definitely not how their representatives voted!
So basically the clients have waived their voting rights and its purely the decision of who is managing their investments.
I believe that allocating just one vote to an Instos is valid!
A research paper on nominees companies, points out that
discrepancies in proxy voting do occur, and many uneducated investors aren’t even aware they can cast votes. But in principle, HSBC, in a custodian role, acts only as the messenger, not the decision-maker.......
So some of the votes from these nominees companies could be suspect, if formalities weren’t carried out correctly in relation to clients transfer of their voting rights
Unknown owners?
On a different note, however, that 17% stake HSBC’s custodian arm has in Westpac could, in theory, represent just one person—or four big investors—buying through a variety of mutual funds, each of which has HSBC as their custodian. It’s a stretch, and it would have to be a very rich group of individuals, but it is possible.
The Board and management are obliged to identify the individuals and their percentage of holdings within the company. Not assume that the nominees are the rightful owner's of the shares!
..... interest in the company and votes with that interest has their voice heard.
The voting system is purposely designed to engender apathy by denying the majority of shareholders, an effective say in the operation of the company.
How many dodgy points do I have to point out to you, ranging from displaying the voting result prior to voting to unidentifiable owners.
Would you condone a billboard at a Federal or State election, with updating results being displayed at the polling booth?
The current system needs be dismantled and restructured by closing all those loopholes for misuse.
The majority of shareholders can see this misuse, but the elite shareholders have a personal interest to perpetuate this fiasco.
My grip isn’t about the running of the company but the abuse of power by individuals involved in the operation, with the intention to deny an effect say by the majority of shareholders.
My suggestion would most probably minimise the spiralling upward trend of the remuneration.
I’ve heard the waffle about the remuneration community getting third party’s remuneration companies advise about the fairness of the community recommendation.
You need recall this fiasco has been going for many years, and their recommendation is based on a tainted database!
Radicool Views
Pretty sure it served it's purpose damn well considering how much time they have used to address the issue and assumed first strike was all but inevitable.
You are just peddling conspiracy theories and your own agenda which as mentioned before is not for the benefit of us as shareholders.
I think we are mostly adults on this forum who take responsibility for our investments and don't need a captain underpants running around to "save us" from the greedy corporate pirates ravaging the populace as they see fit.
It's called capitalism and whilst not perfect throughout history it's proven to be the best system available, we in Australia already have a large Socialist tilt in our version of Capitalism and you seem to be pushing further down that road, great in theory but push too far and you have communism.
Ps: letting the Government own everything to "benefit the people" is not a valid strategy and by suggesting TLS be taken back over by the Government this is exactly path you are wanting us to go down. To be very clear that would be a communist move!
(20min delay)