I have never had a problem with 1 vote per share. Its obvious that the people with most invested actually deserve and do spend a lot more time deciding what is best for shareholders meaning themselves as part of that group. Its not the shareholders you need to guard against - its management that constantly have to have more incentives and are often not aligned with shareholders.
The only time I don't trust other shareholders is during takeovers and mergers where they are involved on both sides of the transaction. They are mostly not allowed to vote under those circumstances so it isn't a real problem for me.
The will of the majority really makes a lot of sense. This is one of the few countries where someone who is liked by a few can get elected via preferences - far too many nuances first past the post makes me happy. Imagine a voting system on anything other than 1 share one vote.
As regards branches - I hate them - mostly staffed by overworked generalists who really are more capable of piloting a computer than answering a real question. If you want to test this go in and ask if their joint accounts are tenants in common or allow you to select that.
The larger question here should be how the company is being run. It is 32% lower than if you purchased CBA 5 years ago. it is 38% lower than the XAO movement over 5 years. I don't think it has made a success of its bank - I just think customers are sticky and don't move easily.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)