Q1. How many shareholders were eligible to vote under the head count criteria and was the chair disappointed that barely 2000 of them did in terms of the proxies? How hard did we try to get out the vote?
Answer: the chair Peter Coleman said 50,000 were eligible and the turnout was pretty standard. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q2. Why did we disclose the proxy position along with the formal addresses by shares but not shareholders? 89% of voted stock is a strong mandate but what was the headcount proxy position?
Answer: The chair fudged this by saying the issue comes out up at AGMs. Yes, but it's not a voluntary disclosure at scheme meetings but an actual metric for the deal to be approved. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q3. A 53% turnout in terms of directed proxies is quite low from a shares point of view. Is this because we have a large retail shareholder base which has largely failed to participate? What proportion of the company do we believe are owned by retail shareholders and what did we do to encourage them to vote?
Answer: More duck and weave from chair Peter Coleman who should have said that more than 40% of the company is owned by around 50,000 retail shareholders and unfortunately barely 2000 have bothered to vote. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Copyright © 2024 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved