Sorry Meg but we can’t save you!

Sorry Meg but the majority of us retail investor’s are unlikely to able to reward u for the work ur have done!
Approx 640,000 shareholders - up to 10,000 shares - can not ensure that u deserve the remuneration because of only about 5100 shareholders

It is ur own mob(Institute of Directors) doings, that has placed u in this predicament.

The main reason for switching from, “show of hands’ to poll voting was to counter activism by the peasant(retail) shareholders.
One of the feeble arguments put forward to Treasury as justifying changes to the voting method was that wealthier investors monitor management performance better than retail investors.

Surprisingly in many of the ASX listed companies, many of the T20 have to meet similar criteria to gain their own rewards.
Thus, Poll voting method suspiciously sounds like, ‘take care of ur mates” or as an insurance policy when it came to the remuneration.

Poll voting has basically transformed a listed Public company into a Proprietary Ltd for the T20.
This has amounted to becoming a circle-jerk, ensuring upwards spiralling remuneration, even in many case for poor performance.

In many cases it is the Mum and Dad investors who supply the seeding money for startup companies and once the company comes to attention by a big large investor, the board simply acts indifferent to these shareholders. eg ARU.

This voting concept should be updated so that each shareholder is given one vote, if they cant attend the AGM by using the Chairman as their proxy.

The govt in power, has always succumb to the wishes of the business community and abetted them by facilitating the bias towards the big end off town, in drafting the Corp Act.

As an example, treasury had failed in drafting the last amendment to the Corp Act, to protect retail investor’s who like to attend the premises where the AGM is to be held.
Ur at the mercy of the T20 and not the BOD in what type of AGM is to be held!

Now the opposite group have become activists or antagonists.

In the past the Custodian's and Nominee's companies basically simply made suggestions to the BOD and simply stuck to administering their clients shareholding's, not acting as activists.
The BOD has a duty to identify these shareholders, who have the right to vote as individuals, otherwise the legal owner should be counted as one shareholder.