What is the motive for the Board and Executive team for not...

What is the motive for the Board and Executive team for not utilising the capabilities of technology for AGM presentation?

If the tech capabilities were included, the voting results would appear closer aligned to a Federal or State election.

Also, there would be no need for the board and management to be kept updated on the incoming proxy/direct votes by a registry company as an excuse to draw up the presentation for AGM display purposes.

I was informed that these updates start coming in to a company a month before hand, giving them capabilities to monitor voting trends. The following extractis form broker’s and advisor’s website support my comments.

Proxy Vote Reporting

We recommend companies schedule regular updates with your share registry provider on proxy voting progress. Although nominee votes are frequently not lodged until 24-48 hours prior to proxy close, it’s important to keep a close eye on proxy reporting at regular intervals after the Notice of Meeting is lodged to gauge shareholder sentiment and prepare yourself properly for the meeting. Your share registry can provide a wide range of reports to track progress. Useful reports include:

A proxy voting summary to view current voting on each resolution. This report should include the current percentage of issued capital voted. Even if this percentage is very small in the early stages of voting, this provides a good indication of the retail shareholders sentiment as these holders tend to vote early.Top 40 Voted – to track those large holders who have voted and ensure their voting is in line with the directors’ recommendation.Top 40 Not Voted – This data can help initiate a communication campaign to incite those parties to vote.Proxyholders report – It’s good to know which proxyholders have been nominated to attend the meeting and whether these votes have been directed. These people may include persons of interest to the company.

It then opens up the opportunity for mischievous behaviours because from my understanding that there is no legal constraint preventing the board or management to get in contact with the T20 and argue to alter their proposed voting elections.

When a company’s Board needs to win support for a capital raising, fend off a takeover attempt, defend itself at a requisitioned meeting or get approval for its remuneration report at the AGM, it can prosecute its case in a number of ways:

it will meet directly with its largest investors and write to the smaller ones, it wish to get the support from the professional proxy advisers who are influential in recommending how super funds and others vote and it will try to push its case their to the media.

Depending on the percentage composition of shareholders dominance, whether retail or institutions, the rules allows the T20 to ring up their mates if the trend isn’t favouring them.

Recall that nominee’s don’t submit the voting results usually about a day or two before the AGM.

The composition of the T20 has, listed, unlisted and proprietary companies who’re probably acquaintances and achieve their own rewards by going through the same process or meeting similar criteria.

Like the saying goes, ‘when you on a good thing, stick to it!”

You can see why the board and management go to great lengths to protect and avoid changes on how a AGM is run!