Source of article: The Strats Times

Writing credits: Sue-Ann Tan

There has been some disquiet among shareholders of various issuers in the last two years that they have not been able to exercise their right to “speak” on shareholders’ resolutions proposed at the AGM, or to have any meaningful dialogue with the Board concerning the business and financial performance of the group.

Most issuers in the last two years where virtual AGMs was the norm did not provide real-time electronic communication facilities, such as video conferencing, tele-conferencing or live chat, to enable questions to be contemporaneously raised and responded to at the AGM. This was a major drawback for virtual AGMs as such an arrangement effectively deprives shareholders of the right to seek subsequent clarifications and/or to raise follow-up questions at the AGM.

A clear benefit of physical AGMs – shareholders would be able to ask “live” questions and obtain contemporaneous responses from the Board not merely on the AGM resolutions to be voted on, but also concerns relating to the business and financial performance of the company, including any issues relating to legal disputes and regulatory investigations / enforcement actions.

I shared my views with the Straits Times in the attached report published today and on LinkedIn here.