(26-04-2012, 12:48 PM)Some-one Wrote: I was just wondering. Every year during AGM, shareholders are required to vote FOR and AGAINST resolution proposed by the Board Of Director (BOD). Has there any been any cases where the resolution was not passed?
Perhaps you do not remember the Robinsons saga some years ago, where the Chairman Michael Wong Pakshong was NOT re-elected. Lippo bought a controlling stake in Robinsons and was overhauling the board. Apparently the Chairman refused to go quietly into the night, so they deposed him in public.
Some-one Wrote:If everytime the resolution gets passed, the AGMs is sort of like quite meaningless. Singapore was unlike US whose shareholders vote against the remuneration of CitiGroup's CEO. I was hoping that one day, we could be more like our US counterparts who dare to unite together and overturn any lousy or bad resolution proposed by the BOD.
FYI the remuneration voting in the US (and UK) is non-binding. The management is free to ignore it. In practice the financial institutions have not meaningfully reduced pay, they have simply changed the weighting of base versus bonus etc. Many bankers have actually seen an INCREASE in base pay, because their bonus is being reduced (as a multiple of base pay). So the net annual salary remains the same.
Fundamentally, one share = one vote. Capitalism is corporate democracy in action. If you have 50% + 1, you have near-absolute power. If you are a minority shareholder, you are powerless unless you can definitively prove minority oppression. How much are you willing to pay in legal fees ?
In the US shareholdings are very fragmented. Very often the biggest shareholders (pension funds) are completely passive and let the management run wild. Activists who shake things up are the exception, not the rule. Ditto in Europe and Australia.
In Asia shareholdings are more concentrated. Very often the biggest shareholders are the founding family. Activism is even rarer than in the US.
Successful activism is exceedingly rare.
Of course, it is not always one share = one vote. Sometimes it is one share = many votes. Some shareholders are more equal than others. Singapore does not allow multiple share classes (except for SPH which is a special case) but such arrangements are not uncommon around the world.