Voting recommendations
Note to journalists:
Reasons AGAINSTItem 3(ii)The reason for voting against item 3(ii) is that the proposal is undefined and meaningless - neither the notice of AGM nor the proxy form specifies the level at which the remuneration is proposed to be fixed. As a result, only those shareholders who make it to the meeting will find out what the proposal is, by which time it will be too late for absent shareholders to send proxy voting instructions. So vote against. Items 6 and 7Webb-site.com urges all investors to vote against the general issue mandate for all listed companies, for the reasons explained in Project Vampire, unless they comply with the recommendations set out in that article. The non-pre-emptive issue mandate allows management to choose the shareowners by allotment of shares. This corrupts the governance mechanism. Shareowners should choose management, not the other way around. If a company wishes to raise cash by issuing shares, then it should do so by rights issue. If your company offers new shares to other investors at a discount, but not to you, then your company is transferring value from you to the new investors. Their gain is your loss. That's why we believe an issue for cash should be done by rights issue, failing which it should be limited to 5% of existing issued shares and a maximum discount of 5%. This year so far, a majority of independent investors in 10 Hang Seng Index companies: Cathay Pacific, Cheung Kong Infrastructure, China Unicom, CITIC Pacific, Legend, MTRC, PCCW, Shanghai Industrial, Swire Pacific and Television Broadcasts have all voted against the issue mandate. In July, another index member, Johnson Electric, became the first member to modify their mandate to partially comply with the Project Vampire recommendations by cutting the size of the mandate to 5% of existing issued shares. HSBC, as a UK company, also complies. Their fellow index members would do well to take note of this. After all, we don't mandate boards to buy back shares from chosen shareholders at a premium to market price, so why should they be allowed to issue shares to chosen shareholders at a discount? Copyright Webb-site.com, 2003 Sign up for our free newsletter Recommend Webb-site.com to a friend Important notice: All material on this site, except where otherwise accredited, is copyright to Webb-site.com. Media and researchers are welcome to quote from articles on this site, provided that such quotation is attributed to Webb-site.com. The information in this site should not be relied upon by any person in making any investment decision. No responsibility or liability is accepted by Webb-site.com or any person related to it for any loss arising from or in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of this site. Persons who are in any doubt about an investment or potential investment should take professional investment advice. From time to time parties associated with Webb-site.com may own long or short positions in securities issued by or related to companies or governments on which we comment. |