The Wrath of Shareholders
I just got back from
Chicago and Akron, America’s rust belt. I was attending two shareholders
meetings, moving resolutions on behalf of other shareholder
activists. One of the company’s was Schering-Plough; the other one was
First Energy.
The First Energy
meeting was a circus. The board of directors has been blatantly ignoring
shareholders’ interests for years. For the last five years shareholders
have moved a particular resolution related to majority voting. They have
passed it at every shareholder meeting by substantial margins—every time
by at least 70 percent votes.
Technically, the way
the SEC sets things up, most shareholder resolutions are advisory only.
The board of directors doesn’t have to implement them. And that’s
exactly what the First Energy board of directors have been doing,
consistently year in and year out, for five years. The shareholders keep
passing this same proposal, and every year the board of directors
ignores them. This year at the shareholder meeting, I was the person
moving that same resolution.
It was a large
shareholder meeting. About 500 people attended—a lot of angry individual
investors. There was a tremendous sense of frustration in the
room—investors pushing on a string. What could they do to influence the
board of directors? It seemed like there was nothing they could do. The
board of directors just ignores them.
What shareholders have
been doing recently has been withholding support for directors. At a
shareholder meeting, not only do you vote on resolutions, but you also
elect the board of directors. What shareholders have been doing is
withholding their support from the nominees for the board of directors.
It’s not like these are real elections. The board members are nominated
by the board, and they run uncontested. When you have plurality-wins
voting, as opposed to majority-wins voting, the board members will
automatically get in. This is because, with plurality based voting,
where all you need is a plurality to win, and you’re the only candidate
running, as long as one investor votes one share for you, you’ve got a
plurality. No one else receives any votes, so you've got the plurality.
This is a situation where shareholders could withhold 99.99999 percent
of votes for a given director, but as long one share is voted for that
director, the director is elected.
So this too is very
much pushing on a string. But shareholders have been withholding support
for directors. Last year, at First Energy, four directors got 47 percent
withhold votes. This was a strong expression of shareholder
dissatisfaction. The situation is getting embarrassing for the
corporation. But First Energy has just been obstinate, ignoring the
shareholders. The situation was just covered in the Wall Street
Journal on the morning of the First Energy meeting.
The board of
directors, should start paying attention to shareholders. What they did
instead was take shareholder money and coordinated with the SEC to spend
that money on a special solicitation to institutional investors, asking
them—begging them— to please not withhold support for the directors.
So I was there at the
meeting. I moved two resolutions, actually. At the end, I asked a
pointed question related to this very topic. For me, this was an
empowering experience. It is this same empowering experience that we
want to make available to other shareholders. After that meeting,
several shareholders lined up to shake my hand and thank me for being
there. Two reporters came up and interviewed me. A former CEO of the
corporation, now retired, came up and shook my hand. We talked for 15
minutes. He told me about the good old days, back when he as CEO
traveled around Asia raising money for the nuclear power plants they
were building at that time.
He and I agreed, times
have changed. Power utilities used to be run by engineers—"pipes and
wires guys." Not anymore. Corporations are being taken over by lawyers
and financiers—people who don’t know anything about pipes and wires, or
running a real public utility.
This shareholder
meeting, like so many I have attended, was a fantastic experience for
me—and it was a fantastic experience for the other shareholders there. I
was attending as a field agent—a representative of the United States
Proxy Exchange. By just doing my job, I was showing other shareholders
how they too can be activists. That’s what the people at that meeting so
much appreciated. They said "thank you for being here; thank you for
making a difference; we have learned from you."
This is what the
Investor Suffrage Movement is working on today. A wonderful announcement
just came out recently. The Investor Suffrage Movement has been
operating as an unincorporated entity for about a year now. Just a
couple weeks ago, we incorporated. We also incorporated the United
States Proxy Exchange.
The two organizations
are practically one and the same right now, but they’re going to
diverge. The Investor Suffrage Movement is going to be the activists’
organization. It’s going to go out and implement proxy exchanges in
different countries around the world. So we’ll have a Canada Proxy
Exchange. We’ll have a UK Proxy Exchange. An Australia Proxy Exchange. A
Germany Proxy Exchange. A Singapore Proxy Exchange. The United State
Proxy Exchange is the first of these proxy exchanges.
Thank you for listening. There’s a great future for
shareholder activism and it’s beginning today with the Investor Suffrage
Movement. I encourage you to become involved. The experience I had at
those shareholder meetings—and that other individuals who’ve stepped
forward to become field agents are having—is empowering stuff. I invite
you to join us. Thank you.