"(The simple fact is that your standard shareholder (excluding...

"(The simple fact is that your standard shareholder (excluding business and constituents ) recognised that no matter what they voted, the votes would still be outweighed by the other votes, ie the new shares placed to top shareholders and whoever else the board are "in bed" with.)"

Judd,

I like your supporting argument, but to me owning shares in a company and then abstaining from voting especially when it is clear that the company is not doing the right thing by it's shareholders is ridiculous at best.
It is a little like loading the gun, and then giving it to the one that you know is going to point it at your head and fire it.

As for your comment "There are only two ways for standard shareholders to voice their opinion, vote no (which would have little impact) or sell their shares,, why would anyone have to sell their shares when they realised that they have been had, instead of voting NO.??? You have lost money anyway, so why making it easier for them.??

And even if your votes would not make a difference on the end result, wouldn't more "NO Votes" send a signal to the Board that Shareholders aren't happy and that they better watch themselves, instead of having a very small "NO votes" which in turn paint the impression that they are doing the right thing and that shareholders are very happy with what they are doing???

If no one wants to vote NO, and they are concerned about declaring/divulging who they are in the Proxy votes, there are other associations the likes of the ASA that will do that for them.

Abstaining or giving the vote to the Chair to use you proxy as he/she like, IMHO is very apathetic. Here mate you can have my gun, now shoot me..!!

Finally, I'd like to remind you, that they are using yours and my moneys, not their own. And I would like to think that they would do their utmost to make it as profitable as they can, for me and you.

I hope that this will help.

Buddy