Agreed 1more, over 45% of the vote against the Chairman is a major issue for him and the board. It adds a very large question mark over his leadership and his position on the board going forward. The irony is he claimed to bring good governance, but he seemingly cannot continue to claim that if he stays under these circumstances with such an extremely high percentage of the shareholder vote against him.
The Chairman may want to dispense with the apparent lip service of claiming good governance. Perhaps in his next address to shareholders he could include numerous references to “focusing on the 1 percenters” because he is only still Chairman by a margin of a few '1 percenters'. That slogan could seem more accurate given his tenuous position.
Did you read the Chairman’s message in the Annual Report? I cannot tell from this if the Chairman actually knows much about this business. He only seemed focused on including a few of the latest buzz words from the market and selling the appearance of good governance. This could possibly be one of the reasons why he received such a high percentage of shareholders voting against him.
I find it difficult to see how anyone could continue under such circumstances. I suspect good governance can get trampled in the short-term rush to maintain power for one’s own self interest. Hopefully good sense and governance prevails for the benefit of all shareholders and he resigns from this untenable position.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?