don't offer food and beverage, the AGM will have much fewer people.
In other countries, food and beverage is not served at all.
If I not wrong, investors in hk with their cdp equivalent account can vote remotely and electronically through cdp without having to attend the agm. TRUE?
buy 1 share each of the 30 blue chips and you get free annual buffet x 30?
I am not really interested if they reduce it to 100 lots of lower. I am more bothered about the min commission of $18-25.
(19-08-2013, 08:23 PM)Some-one Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know if I am playing the devil's advocate or not. Did anyone not realise that it would increase the number of shareholders attending AGM and this might be counter productive to real discussion in the AGM? I suggest that only those holding 1000 shares and above can attend the AGM but retailers can still buy shares lesser than 1000.
The principle behind this suggestion is wrong. All shareholders big and small should be treated equally.
If follow what u propose, why not make it minimum 1,000,000 shares to attend AGM?
for those worried about the min commission, if you guys considered using standard charted instead?
If i am not wrong, they don't charge min comm, please correct me if I am wrong thanks
(20-08-2013, 07:47 AM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ] (19-08-2013, 08:23 PM)Some-one Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know if I am playing the devil's advocate or not. Did anyone not realise that it would increase the number of shareholders attending AGM and this might be counter productive to real discussion in the AGM? I suggest that only those holding 1000 shares and above can attend the AGM but retailers can still buy shares lesser than 1000.
The principle behind this suggestion is wrong. All shareholders big and small should be treated equally.
If follow what u propose, why not make it minimum 1,000,000 shares to attend AGM?
There is a need to balance between serious shareholders and those who are buying the shares just to attend AGM and eat the food. I am not sure how many AGMs you have attended. Every year, I tried my best to attend all the AGMs by taking leaves. I have came across shareholders who are asking questions that are not related to the Annual Report. Most of them are just attending for the buffet spread.
Keppel Corp has always held their AGM in Raffles Convention Centre and after the AGM, you cannot imagine how many people cut the queue and take huge quantity of the food for which they would never be able to finish alone. Some even tabao back the food, pushing and shoving just to get the food. There was once when the waiter was nearly knocked down by the shareholders.
These shareholders hold a minimum quantity of 1000 shares as per current requirement. With the new requirements, those holding 100 shares and maybe even 1 share in the future is able to attend the AGM, how would this affect future AGM? Imagine 1 million shares with 1 million shareholders attending AGM, how would this affect the quality of the AGM?
I suggest you attend Keppel Corp AGM and see what would really gone wrong when the minimum number of shares is reduced. I think it is fine to reduce it to 100 shares or 10 shares but only serious investors should be allowed to attend the AGM to keep quality discussion with the management ongoing.
Another good suggestion by freedom is to simply just remove the food. I believe with this removal, more serious investor would attend AGM for real discussion and not just simply for the food.
I have been to SG, HK, Msian AGMs. Most people are there for the food too. Hahahah...
Only one with no free food is the one at Omaha.
Should separate food issue with AGM issues.
If it is about the rush for food, the companies should just go for lunchboxes.
No need to set minimum threshold.
Most people who are there for food wont ask questions so the quality discussion with mgt not compromised.
The worst people at AGM Q&A are those who speak up for the sake of speaking up. Likely correcting grammar, fawning over
big bosses (e.g. CDL) & make some political comments. You guys know who I am referring to.
(20-08-2013, 09:50 AM)opmi Wrote: [ -> ]I have been to SG, HK, Msian AGMs. Most people are there for the food too. Hahahah...
Only one with no free food is the one at Omaha.
Should separate food issue with AGM issues.
If it is about the rush for food, the companies should just go for lunchboxes.
No need to set minimum threshold.
Most people who are there for food wont ask questions so the quality discussion with mgt not compromised.
The worst people at AGM Q&A are those who speak up for the sake of speaking up. Likely correcting grammar, fawning over
big bosses (e.g. CDL) & make some political comments. You guys know who I am referring to.
You hold shares in Berkshire Hathaway? Are you a fund manager? I was just wondering if you really fly overseas just to attend their AGM?
With regards to your last paragraph, I was in Sembcorp Industries AGM few years back and there is this guy who seems to have a personal grudge against the management and he even make some racist comments. Then this Mano (very famous person who attend AGM regularly) actually apologises. I think these people should not be allowed to attend AGM and with more people allowing to buy shares that are less than 1000, there may be some who just buy for the sake to eat the buffett since it just do not cost much now. Let's first just assume that things remains status quo after SGX reduce per lot to 100 shares.
I think I know who this person that you are referring to
. Yes, these are the things that may happen more frequently with the reducing of the per lot size and which SGX should have thought about. It looks to me that SGX is trying to benefit its shareholders. This change would result in more liquidity and more revenue for SGX. Perhaps, regulator and stock exchanges should be of different entity.
Maybe instead of food companies could give out souvenirs to each attendee like in the past. I have a sizable collection of old kerosene cigarette lighters from 70's/80's era given to me by an old friend many of the lighters bear names of companies they used to give it out at AGM's back when smoking was not yet considered health risk a time before anti-smoking campaigns began.