Sharesoc hates us

[UncleEbenezer]

Sharesoc's latest complains about the Royal Mail's AGM being held in Exeter, on the grounds that it's not convenient for him.

Speaking from the Southwest, Exeter is not particularly convenient, but is at least feasible. From my nearest mainline station (Plymouth), St Davids is just one third of the way to Paddington or a little under half way to Temple Meads, so it would be possible to attend a meeting there without an overnight stay. Not relevant to me: I'm not an RM shareholder. But the complaint that one bigco among so many meets somewhere outside his bubble shows how Sharesoc despises us provincial hicks. We should know our place, and not expect even this one crumb from the rich man's table.

Of course, if Sharesoc aspired to inclusiveness, they would be campaigning for online attendance to be facilitated for all shareholder meetings of listed companies, instead of bemoaning someone else getting a turn at the high table.

[bungeejumper]

It shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience. I see from ShareSoc's home page that it has a "Member's Area" page, which would seem to suggest that there's only one of them.

But anyway, is Exeter significantly harder to reach than other regional centres? Leeds, say? Or Manchester?

3 hours/2.5 hours/2.25 hours respectively by train from London. A two hour thrash down the A303 from Lunnon, or down the M5 from anywhere else. The sunshine gateway to Dartmoor, Clyst St Mary, or, ermmm, Budleigh Salterton.

BJ

[PinkDalek]

... I see from ShareSoc's home page that it has a "Member's Area" page, which would seem to suggest that there's only one of them. ...

Unlike you not to mention the letter being addressed to Dear Orna, yet signed off Yours faithfully, and that from someone said to have attended Jesus College (albeit studying Maths etc).

[bungeejumper]

Unlike you not to mention the letter being addressed to Dear Orna, yet signed off Yours faithfully

Any letter that doesn't start "Hi Orna" gets my vote.

BJ

[UncleEbenezer]

... I see from ShareSoc's home page that it has a "Member's Area" page, which would seem to suggest that there's only one of them. ...

Like the brexit party? Farage shrewdly anticipates that "members" would mean trouble when it turns out most of them are racists, but what's in it for sharesoc?

Anyway, well spotted. I get sharesoc by feed, so wasn't at the website.

Unlike you not to mention the letter being addressed to Dear Orna, yet signed off Yours faithfully, and that from someone said to have attended Jesus College (albeit studying Maths etc).

Ahem. I studied maths (albeit at another college), and that particular pedantry leaves me cold, too. Though I would observe it in the context of a formal letter.

[PinkDalek]

Ahem. I studied maths (albeit at another college),

Yes, I know!

... and that particular pedantry leaves me cold, too. Though I would observe it in the context of a formal letter.

If I published a letter for all to see, I'd probably attempt to ensure I signed off correctly, despite also formerly being a mathematician (albeit at another college).

Your obedient servant,
PD

[Dod101]

Of course, if Sharesoc aspired to inclusiveness, they would be campaigning for online attendance to be facilitated for all shareholder meetings of listed companies, instead of bemoaning someone else getting a turn at the high table.

Actually, UE, they are and have for a long time been , together with the UKSA, campaigning for shareholders' rights with so many privately owned shares now held in nominee names. There is a page of FT Money today devoted to the subject. In particular there is to be a review by the Law Commission 'aimed at boosting corporate government and transparency'. The article goes on to tell us that around 12.5% by value of shares in the UK's listed companies are owned by individuals. It also says that 'almost none' are the legal owners owing to the fact that they are nearly all held in nominee accounts. It would be interesting to know what proportion of that 12.5% are held in certificated form or in a Crest account.

So it would seem that ShareSoc and the UKSA are not doing a very good job of publicising their activities. In my experience, not that many private shareholders are all that bothered about the loss of their rights, but they should be.

Dod

[UncleEbenezer]

So it would seem that ShareSoc and the UKSA are not doing a very good job of publicising their activities. In my experience, not that many private shareholders are all that bothered about the loss of their rights, but they should be.

Dod

I am bothered by my loss of rights, which is why I deplore inaccessible meetings as an anachronism for which there is no excuse in the modern world.

However, I am much less bothered by the supposed loss of rights due to my shares being held in nominee accounts. Because the World, including my nominee, is aware of the issue. I can use the Investegate feed to follow company announcements and reports. I can vote by instructing my nominee to exercise my vote. They would also facilitate my attendance at meetings, if more serious problems (i.e. geographic inaccessibility) didn't keep me away.

[Dod101]

Re the venue of Exeter, I suspect that it is rather more inconvenient for me as I live an hour or so north of Edinburgh. Inaccessibility is a relative term. As it is, I have to travel to London for most AGMs if I want to be there. That usually means an overnight there as well so I could complain about the location of most of them but I chose to live where I do and that is just too bad. There is a move by some companies to hold AGMs elsewhere than in London from time to time (in response to shareholder requests) and I guess that that is what RMG are doing.

Dod

[tjh290633]

Why do Scottish companies have their AGMs in Scotland? Like Alliance Trust in Dundee, for example.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

TJH

[Lootman]

anyway, is Exeter significantly harder to reach than other regional centres? Leeds, say? Or Manchester?

About the same. The fastest trains from Paddington reach Exeter in about 2 hours, with one stop in Reading. And there is Pullman dining on a couple of them.

Re the venue of Exeter, I suspect that it is rather more inconvenient for me as I live an hour or so north of Edinburgh.

I flew on Flybe from Edinburgh to Exeter non-stop a little while ago. Took about an hour and cost 40 quid. Don't eat the food onboard.

[Dod101]

Why do Scottish companies have their AGMs in Scotland? Like Alliance Trust in Dundee, for example.

I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

TJH

Because that is where the company is based. Just as Unilever PLC tends to hold its meetings in London. Alliance is not a very good example because like a few other ITs, they usually hold a meeting in London as well, not a formal AGM of course but a presentation and the opportunity to question the Directors. I do not know if they still do it, but Personal Assets used to do something similar.

Dod

[tjh290633]

Sorry, Dod, it was a rhetorical question, like why do bears go in the woods?

TJH

[UncleEbenezer]

To return to my original point, teleconferencing is available to Scottish companies, too. I've remotely attended many meetings and conferences in Silicon Valley and some even further afield. It's inexcusable that companies listed on the London stock exchange should fail to facilitate it, whether the meeting room itself is in Exeter or Edinburgh!

[Dod101]

I thInk that geographic inaccessibility is up to the individual. Teleconferencing is something else but I guess for the average AGM it would be unnecessary and for all I know expensive. How many shareholders would be bothered anyway?

Dod

[UncleEbenezer]

I thInk that geographic inaccessibility is up to the individual.

Nonsense. Cost may be prohibitive. Time may be prohibitive. Indeed, health and mobility may be prohibitive - which brings us into scope of discrimination legislation. Or commitments like family and caring - which may be an aspect of time but bring us into territory that's sometimes argued as sex discrimination.
In my case, cost and time mean I couldn't consider any AGM in London, unless it happened to coincide with a stronger reason to travel to southeast England.

Teleconferencing is something else but I guess for the average AGM it would be unnecessary and for all I know expensive. How many shareholders would be bothered anyway?

Dod

1. It's only unnecessary if you take the view that being open to shareholders is no more than an administrative inconvenience.
2. The cost is a drop in the ocean compared to hiring a big venue (like a hotel's conference suite) and paying your executives' expenses. Some venues have the capability as standard, just as they'll provide an OHP and PA system, or coffee and biscuits.
3. How many shareholders? I don't know. One day we'll have some stats on the subject. Managing the numbers could be the biggest issue in cases where there's controversy, such as a shareholder rebellion against executive pay or (other) mismanagement.

[Dod101]

Ok then what are you doing about it? I am quite prepared to raise teleconferencing at AGM's which I attend but it will never be the same as actually coming along to a meeting.

I do not like your opinion ' Nonsense' in response to my view that where we live is up to us because for as long as I have lived in the UK and been interested in such things, I have lived by many people's standards 'in the sticks', but that is my choice and it tends to make it more difficult to get to many company AGMs which tend to be held in London. I have though managed to get to HSBC and Unilever in recent times but only by staying overnight in London at some expense. Not sure that I would have seen a teleconferencing of the AGM as quite so interesting.

Dod

[csearle]

Like the brexit party? Farage shrewdly anticipates that "members" would mean trouble when it turns out most of them are racists, but what's in it for shares.

A cheap ignorant shot disparaging a group based on nothing but prejudice C.

[UncleEbenezer]

Like the brexit party? Farage shrewdly anticipates that "members" would mean trouble when it turns out most of them are racists, but what's in it for shares.

A cheap ignorant shot disparaging a group based on nothing but prejudice C.

Damn, that's a bit of a thread-hijack, isn't it? Even if you'd quoted me correctly, there's a big difference between an aside and an attack!

Not prejudice. Postjudice if you like. We have a lot of history to inform that judgement. Not least the previous incarnation of the Farage party, that fell apart as soon as its true nature lost the shield of its Deep Establishment leader.

(Note, I'm not calling Farage himself a racist: he isn't by any measure I recognise, and BBC idiot lefty comedians calling him one only serve to distract from the racism of his supporters).