Defending the value of AGMs in Australia

Uncategorized 7 Comments

Over recent years, the way in which annual general meetings (AGMs) are conducted in my home country of Australia has been the subject of a considerable volume of criticism, and calls for an overhaul of the way they are conducted have intensified.

However, I do not support these calls.

Whilst not perfect, I feel that AGMs in their current form are worthwhile – predominately for shareholders but also for companies as well. 

 
AGMs under fire
Last week, James McKenzie, chairman of Australian retail company Pacific Brands, became the latest voice in calls for a complete overhaul of shareholder meetings in Australia, according to a report in the Australian Financial Review (AGMs: Nice place for a cup of tea and a bite to eat, May 15, 2010).

McKenzie believes the U.S model, which relies more on proxy votes, is more effective.

“What I like about the American AGM system is that you don’t get 250 people stacked in a room for probably not the right objectives – i.e. free food and a cup of tea afterwards, asking silly questions ..”

“.. The Americans do it all by proxy.”

He is not alone. According to the report, two-thirds of directors at the Australian Company Institute of Directors annual conference in Christchurch, New Zealand, agreed that the AGM was no longer an effective place of communication with shareholders.

(Note: Though the above quote refers to the American system, my comments here relate solely to Australia and do not, in any way, represent a critique of current U.S practice in this area)

 
Some criticisms valid ..
To be sure, some areas of complaint are valid.

AGMs do cost money and take up management time. And occasionally, the process is subject to abuse – either by interest groups trying to push their own agendas, or by individual shareholders using the meeting as a forum to make unsubstantiated allegations.

 
.. but they do have value
Nevertheless, AGMs are worthwhile, and their value extends well beyond scrumptious sandwiches and snacks.

This is so for a number of reasons:

 
• Those ‘frivolous’ questions are important.

To be sure, some questions and comments may seem inconsequential in the broad scheme of things.

But they are important to those who ask them. And it is important that all shareholders, regardless of the size of their holding, have an effective forum to ask questions, voice frustrations or concerns, and challenge directors on areas of performance or behavior.

 
• For shareholders, there is real value in meeting senior staff.

Equally important is the ‘mingling’ which takes place after the formal part of the meeting.

In my own case, I have only ever been to one AGM: that of Australian chemicals and mining services outfit Orica Ltd last year.

Most likely the process of meeting myself and other small shareholders did not seem overly consequential from the viewpoint of directors and senior managers on that occasion.

But it was important to me. This was my one chance to meet the key people behind my investment, and having sat in on the presentation and met some of those in charge, I went home that day feeling a great deal more comfortable about where my money was placed.

 
• They do promote accountability.

There is something special about face to face meetings, and the idea of directors having to account for themseves in person does up the ante a notch in terms of accountability.

For one thing, the corporate ‘spin doctoring’ often associated with other forms of communication is not so easy face to face. And it becomes more difficult for directors to gloss over or ignore legitimate concerns about performance or behavior in a forum where they are subject to direct challenge from shareholders.

Besides, the idea that any individual shareholder can be physically present during and participate in proceedings regarding board elections and company resolutions does promote confidence in the idea that the whole thing is properly transparent and above board. This is still the case even where proxies account for large portions of the vote.

 
• An investment in stakeholder relations

But most importantly AGMs do not just benefit shareholders; well run, they benefit the company as well.

AGMs represent an unparalleled opportunity to exhibit professionalism; to articulate vision, strategy and direction; and to respond in a constructive way to any legitimate investor concerns.

All this does wonders for investor relations (not to mention public relations), and I would certainly have thought that the benefits of a successful meeting would be more than sufficient to justify the costs involved – particularly given the importance of shareholders as a stakeholder group.

In their current form, AGM’s in Australia are not perfect. But they do have value, and I do not support calls for an overhaul with regard to their proceedings.

Oh, and keep that free food coming – those doughnuts, muffins and fresh sandwiches are delicious!

.

7 Responses to “Defending the value of AGMs in Australia”

  1. Karen Swim Says:
    May 25th, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    Andrew, I am not familiar with the Australian AGM system but based on what I have read here your reasons for keeping the current system are sound and valid. You hit on key issues (spin doctoring, accountability) that have contributed to the many problems with the US economy and lack of trust in corporations and wall street. If anyone is proposing emulating our system I would advise to run the other way!

  2. Brad Shorr Says:
    May 25th, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Hi Andrew, Active shareholder participation is a great thing. In the U.S., many proxy votes are a rubber stamp, and I agree with Karen’s assessment. When shares are widely held (a good thing), getting full attendance at a meeting is impractical, but the more direct input owners give, the better the management of the given enterprise will be.

  3. Andrew Heaton Says:
    May 26th, 2010 at 8:52 am

    Karen/Brad,

    Let me stress again that in no way are my comments a reflection upon (or critique of) the U.S system.

    I guess in your country, you have many big cities spread out over thousands of kilometres (not to mention international shareholders), so physical attendance at the meeting would be difficult from a logistical viewpoint for all except the specific city in which the meeting is being held (which I guess in many cases would be New York – is that right?).

    In Australia, we too are somewhat geographically dispersed, but the majority of the population (and therefore, the shareholder base) is concentrated in the South-East, and the two main cities, Sydney and Melbourne, are less than 1,000 km away.

    Partly for this reason (not to mention the fact that the total number of shareholders in Australian companies are generally smaller compared with their U.S counterparts, and smaller numbers are easier to accommodate in a single meeting), I could understand why active shareholder participation may be perhaps more viable from a logistical and practical point of view in Australia than in the U.S.

  4. Fred H Schlegel Says:
    May 27th, 2010 at 12:26 pm

    How does the AGM system deal with absent shareholders?

  5. Andrew Heaton Says:
    May 27th, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    Hi Fred,

    Interesting question.

    This is not really much of a problem – attendance is optional (as is voting) and so absence on the part of some shareholders does not cause any major difficulties.

    I’m not entirely certain what happens when a shareholder is not able to attend but still wishes to participate in the voting – I think these people are able to nominate a proxy.

    As I understand it, those shareholders who are not able to attend the meeting but would still like to participate in voting have the option of nominating a proxy.

  6. Mark Says:
    May 27th, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    Andrew,
    Your points on having live face to face meetings are valid. There is more accountability when one has the opportunity to look in another persons eyes and ask the tough questions. If we lack anything in the corporate world it is transparency and accountability.

  7. Andrew Heaton Says:
    May 29th, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Thanks Mark.

    Agreed – we can never have too much transparency or accountability in modern corporate governance practices.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv Enabled
Icons by N.Design Studio. Designed By Ben Swift. Powered by WordPress and Free WordPress Themes
Entries RSS