Ann: Redflow enters Voluntary Administration, page-145

Part of the issue here, I suspect, and part of the reason for the disconnect, is that shareholdings are generally very diffuse; the specific individual responsibility is very small. Somebody who held, say, $10,000 in shares (as of the de-listing) had ownership of less than 0.04% of the company. Even a million dollars' worth of shares would be less than 4%.

In that respect, a single shareholder can say, "Not my responsibility", and be pretty close to correct. But taken as an aggregate, there's no two ways about it: the shareholders were asleep at the wheel, and weren't holding management (through the board) to account.

In fairness, that's the case for most publicly traded companies. Most people just buy shares and forget about them (metaphorically speaking); they don't sit down to participate in the big decisions, like the remuneration report.

But that doesn't mean that, as a shareholder, we don't bear - collectively - some of the responsibility for this debacle (I include myself in this group as I held shares in Redflow until May this year - I got off the train soon enough to dodge the fallout, but not to have no responsibility in this). As I've said before, the bulk of the responsibility sits with management. I stand behind that comment, one hundred percent. But collectively, shareholders need to accept that they also hold some of the responsibility, however small that responsibility might be for an individual. And as such, @SimonGr is correct in his assessment. Blunt, maybe harsh, but correct.

All holders, in any company (not just Redflow), would do well to reflect on this.

</soapbox>