Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting, page-2

So - if I had shares - which I do not, I would be voting against all members of the board and the remuneration report. There needs to be a board that looks after all of the shareholders interests, and not just one or a few.
This as a stock will be worth about 10% less than it otherwise would be, as capital management seems to be an excuse to bestow largess upon the fortunate few, so your capital is at higher risk of dilution than it should be. So you need to factor that in. IMO - the whole board needs to go if you want to protect your investment. Just saying - lol. I keep a black list and have put all of SHV's directors on it, so that I take these risks into account properly in the future. I'd love it if they all were shown the door. You'll have to vote the remuneration report down two years in a row.

Waislitz should now be regarded a closely related of KMP IMO, as evidenced by the goodies offered to him. So I hope he will do what I think is the right thing and recuse himself from voting.

I have a vested interest in the outcome, as I would like to invest in SHV at some stage, but will be only willing to invest at a price that reflects the risks to my capital. I'd like a board that puts the shareholders interests ahead of their own interests, and act as custodians and not parasites.