Every year, US billionaire Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc attracts tens of thousands of people to its AGM in Omaha, Nebraska, where Buffett and his business partner Charlie Munger spend hours answering shareholder questions on the company’s performance and outlook.
This year, the AGM is scheduled for May 2 and the company has arranged for journalists from Fortune magazine, CNBC and the New York Times to ask Buffett and Munger questions submitted by shareholders.
The Sage of Omaha is not afraid of answering questions that may grill Berkshire and its operations at this difficult time. As he said in a letter to shareholders on Feb. 27: “We know the journalists will pick some tough ones and that’s the way we like it.”
For some, shareholder meetings are less than compelling affairs, but Buffett likes to encourage Berkshire’s shareholders to attend, and the company always tries to make the meeting festive and informative.
In Taiwan, the situation is rather different. Most listed companies tend to prefer that shareholders stay well away. Companies claim that their management and board directors are doing everything possible for investors, but in the end rubber-stamping executive decisions is the preferred AGM agenda.
In recent years the situation has grown worse as listed companies find ways to actively discourage shareholders from attending and exercising their rights. This year, an astonishing number of firms have scheduled their AGMs on the same dates to frustrate investors with broad portfolios.
Despite growing criticism that such practices breach shareholder rights and interests as well as infringe on corporate governance principles, 289 listed companies will hold meetings on June 10, 241 firms on June 16 and 258 on June 19, according to latest stock exchange information. Last year, the lucky day was June 13, when more than 600 listed companies held AGMs.
Some companies have said that this scheduling was based on zodiac considerations, but the unspoken reason for all of this is that it obstructs “unwelcome shareholders” who might make embarrassing statements or throw difficult questions at executives.
There is no justification for denying a shareholder’s right to know what is happening with his or her investment, nor is there any excuse for frustrating the right to comment on company performance and have a say on who sits on the board.
If the government wants to deliver on its promise to enhance transparency in corporate governance, then it should encourage shareholder participation in company affairs. It should not sit on the sidelines and protest that there are no regulations on such matters.
The Financial Supervisory Commission’s decision on Friday to seek an amendment to Article 36 of the Securities and Exchange Act (證券交易法) that would afford companies more time in scheduling annual shareholder meetings is just a start. The next step should see the regulator devising incentives for listed companies that display transparency.
The regulator should also design a system that allows shareholders to participate in meetings if they cannot attend in person because of block scheduling such as that described above.
After all, it is the shareholders, not the management or directors, who own the company.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS