The Lemon Fool

I noticed recently that the Chairman of M & S, Archie Norman (a good man IMHO) wrote to one of the regulators I think it was, proposing a few ideas to save companies money. One of the things he wanted was to abolish the need for companies to hold 'in person' Annual meetings and allow them simply to hold them electronically. As he said, a company can fulfil the requirements for an in person AGM by three shareholders meeting in a barn in the Outer Hebrides (thus I assume, trying to illustrate the fact that they need not be of any value if the company wants to be awkward). He also wanted to abolish the requirement to publish in hard copy form the Annual Report. I am not sure about the value of an in person AGM but I imagine many companies could be tempted to abolish them if only to rid them of green etc troublemakers (at least from the Company's point of view)

I though would be very concerned about abolishing hard copy Annual Reports. I certainly do not get one for all of the 30 or so holdings that I have but I find them so much easier to read than having to flick through a computer screen. I try to read the Annual Report for most of my holdings but it is so much easier sitting comfortably in my armchair, possibly with some refreshment, and reading it there. We can learn a lot from an Annual Report. Is it full of jargon? Is it clearly set out? Does the Board look fit for their job? Assessing a company is so much more than studying the numbers, in fact I do not do much of that. I much prefer the 'soft' issues. Watch out! I might even write to Archie Norman!

Dod

Dod101 wrote:I noticed recently that the Chairman of M & S, Archie Norman (a good man IMHO) wrote to one of the regulators I think it was, proposing a few ideas to save companies money. One of the things he wanted was to abolish the need for companies to hold 'in person' Annual meetings and allow them simply to hold them electronically. As he said, a company can fulfil the requirements for an in person AGM by three shareholders meeting in a barn in the Outer Hebrides (thus I assume, trying to illustrate the fact that they need not be of any value if the company wants to be awkward). He also wanted to abolish the requirement to publish in hard copy form the Annual Report. I am not sure about the value of an in person AGM but I imagine many companies could be tempted to abolish them if only to rid them of green etc troublemakers (at least from the Company's point of view)

I though would be very concerned about abolishing hard copy Annual Reports. I certainly do not get one for all of the 30 or so holdings that I have but I find them so much easier to read than having to flick through a computer screen. I try to read the Annual Report for most of my holdings but it is so much easier sitting comfortably in my armchair, possibly with some refreshment, and reading it there. We can learn a lot from an Annual Report. Is it full of jargon? Is it clearly set out? Does the Board look fit for their job? Assessing a company is so much more than studying the numbers, in fact I do not do much of that. I much prefer the 'soft' issues. Watch out! I might even write to Archie Norman!

Dod

I understand your view.
However, I would support the move to allow companies to stop printing enormous (300+ pages is not unusual) annual reports: how many trees are used (and how many posties' bags/backs are bust)? I'd much rather view (and be able to search for easily the bits I want), and store systematically, a pdf.
FWIW, I understand that for anyone of around the age of 30 (whatever 'gen' that is), unless the item can be downloaded onto their phone, they're not interested. Given that they'll shortly be in the decision-making/managerial positions, you can see where the future of printed annual reports will go...

YL (age group 55-60)

Dod101 wrote:I noticed recently that the Chairman of M & S, Archie Norman (a good man IMHO) wrote to one of the regulators I think it was, proposing a few ideas to save companies money. One of the things he wanted was to abolish the need for companies to hold 'in person' Annual meetings and allow them simply to hold them electronically. As he said, a company can fulfil the requirements for an in person AGM by three shareholders meeting in a barn in the Outer Hebrides (thus I assume, trying to illustrate the fact that they need not be of any value if the company wants to be awkward). He also wanted to abolish the requirement to publish in hard copy form the Annual Report. I am not sure about the value of an in person AGM but I imagine many companies could be tempted to abolish them if only to rid them of green etc troublemakers (at least from the Company's point of view)

I though would be very concerned about abolishing hard copy Annual Reports. I certainly do not get one for all of the 30 or so holdings that I have but I find them so much easier to read than having to flick through a computer screen. I try to read the Annual Report for most of my holdings but it is so much easier sitting comfortably in my armchair, possibly with some refreshment, and reading it there. We can learn a lot from an Annual Report. Is it full of jargon? Is it clearly set out? Does the Board look fit for their job? Assessing a company is so much more than studying the numbers, in fact I do not do much of that. I much prefer the 'soft' issues. Watch out! I might even write to Archie Norman!

Dod

That's fine with me. Except.

If that is sufficiently more valuable to you than a free online version, presumably that value is sufficiently so that you should pay the marginal cost of it being produced in physical form and posted to you. Why should the company (in effect still you, as a shareholder) have to bear that massively higher cost to do so for all the shareholders, many of whom perceive no value in receiving it in hard copy form?

Noone is saying you can't have it in the form you want it. Just pay for it.

I had not thought of the younger generation but I do not think that they any more than me will want to flick through a computer or phone screen.
We need to reconnect investors with the companies they own and remind them that they are not computer chips but actual companies. As for the size of company reports, they could certainly be reduced in size and more detail could be available online, and I think the basics could easily be set out in a much smaller printed report. I agree that the HSBC report for instance is nonsensical as it stands. 406 pages, most of which will surely remain unread by the most dedicated analyst. That is what we need to tackle.
Dod

dealtn wrote:

Dod101 wrote:I noticed recently that the Chairman of M & S, Archie Norman (a good man IMHO) wrote to one of the regulators I think it was, proposing a few ideas to save companies money. One of the things he wanted was to abolish the need for companies to hold 'in person' Annual meetings and allow them simply to hold them electronically. As he said, a company can fulfil the requirements for an in person AGM by three shareholders meeting in a barn in the Outer Hebrides (thus I assume, trying to illustrate the fact that they need not be of any value if the company wants to be awkward). He also wanted to abolish the requirement to publish in hard copy form the Annual Report. I am not sure about the value of an in person AGM but I imagine many companies could be tempted to abolish them if only to rid them of green etc troublemakers (at least from the Company's point of view)

I though would be very concerned about abolishing hard copy Annual Reports. I certainly do not get one for all of the 30 or so holdings that I have but I find them so much easier to read than having to flick through a computer screen. I try to read the Annual Report for most of my holdings but it is so much easier sitting comfortably in my armchair, possibly with some refreshment, and reading it there. We can learn a lot from an Annual Report. Is it full of jargon? Is it clearly set out? Does the Board look fit for their job? Assessing a company is so much more than studying the numbers, in fact I do not do much of that. I much prefer the 'soft' issues. Watch out! I might even write to Archie Norman!

Dod

That's fine with me. Except.

If that is sufficiently more valuable to you than a free online version, presumably that value is sufficiently so that you should pay the marginal cost of it being produced in physical form and posted to you. Why should the company (in effect still you, as a shareholder) have to bear that massively higher cost to do so for all the shareholders, many of whom perceive no value in receiving it in hard copy form?

Noone is saying you can't have it in the form you want it. Just pay for it.

I have no problem with that but I am arguing the principle not how the report should be paid for. Mind you I think a shareholder should not pay for a printed report; others should though.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:

dealtn wrote:
That's fine with me. Except.

If that is sufficiently more valuable to you than a free online version, presumably that value is sufficiently so that you should pay the marginal cost of it being produced in physical form and posted to you. Why should the company (in effect still you, as a shareholder) have to bear that massively higher cost to do so for all the shareholders, many of whom perceive no value in receiving it in hard copy form?

Noone is saying you can't have it in the form you want it. Just pay for it.

I have no problem with that but I am arguing the principle not how the report should be paid for. Mind you I think a shareholder should not pay for a printed report; others should though.

Dod

So your principle is a hard copy should be paid for by the company (owned by the shareholders) and not by the shareholders? This should happen for all shareholders even though many (most?) don't want or need one?

That's an odd set of principles I would argue.

It looks to me like you are arguing the Company should do what you want that is best for you, regardless of what is best for the company, or for other shareholders.

We shareholders are all Jock Tamson’s bairns. In any case, the number of Reports needed must have reduced in recent years as many individual shareholders have moved their holdings to a nominee’s account. Printing and mailing is also I imagine a marginal expense compared to putting the Report together in the first place.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:We shareholders are all Jock Tamson’s bairns. In any case, the number of Reports needed must have reduced in recent years as many individual shareholders have moved their holdings to a nominee’s account. Printing and mailing is also I imagine a marginal expense compared to putting the Report together in the first place.

Dod

Regardless of the drop in the number of shareholders it is a financial and environmental waste. At a time where we need companies to be more efficient, and we should be respecting the environment as a society, it is hard to defend as a principle. It is an anachronism that is hard to justify when that information is freely available and equally distributable to all shareholders. If some want, or need, or prefer, it to be delivered in another form, then they can pay for it as individuals.