Not one shareholder showed up to Intel’s shareholders meeting last week. In person, at least.
Instead, Intel’s annual meeting was entirely virtual. There was no in-person gathering site, the questions were submitted in advance, and management and the board made all their presentations online.
Virtual meetings are a growing phenomenon, but although technologically feasible, they are a bad idea.
Illustration: June Hsu
Last year, 90 companies used this method using Broadridge, a big provider of virtual meeting technology. In addition to Intel, GoPro, SeaWorld Entertainment, PayPal, Fitbit and Yelp have all held virtual shareholders’ meetings in the last year.
Companies are adopting this technology for a number of reasons. There are the obvious cost savings, because they do not have to pay for a location and serve food (however meager, although some companies are known for their shareholders’ meeting spreads).
Having a virtual meeting allows people to “attend” who would not otherwise want to make the trip. The company can also better track shareholders’ attendance and participation.
BLOCKING GADFLIES
Perhaps more important, a virtual shareholder meeting allows the company to manage troublesome shareholders and their often uncomfortable questions.
Some of this may provide a welcome limit on the time monopolized by corporate gadflies such as John Chevedden, James McRitchie and William Steiner, who are responsible for a staggering 70 percent of shareholders’ proposals.
Not only do these individuals like to propose company action, they make a habit of haranguing directors at corporate meetings.
And who could forget Evelyn Davis? She made a living by selling subscriptions to her newsletter, and companies would buy these subscriptions to appease her and avoid her lengthy scoldings of management at annual meeting time.
Virtual meetings are also convenient when it comes to general protesters. No doubt SeaWorld was happy to avoid a possible protest by animal rights groups over its keeping of killer whales when it held its virtual shareholders’ meeting last year.
It is hard to blame a company for wanting to stop these practices, though I must admit the quirky shareholders make life more interesting.
However, there are other things a company gains by eliminating in-person shareholders’ meetings — and that is limiting tough questions.
Broadridge specifically states this advantage in its marketing materials: “Issuers can privately view and manage shareholder questions without broadcasting to other attendees.”
This means a company can pre-empt activist before they even arrive on the scene. It was no coincidence that CSX Corp held its 2008 meeting at a remote rail yard in New Orleans, the same year it was the focus of a shareholder activist putting up a proxy fight.
In prior years, it had held those meetings at the luxurious Greenbrier resort in West Virginia, which the railroad owned at the time. A virtual meeting eliminates the potential for a public relations disaster.
True to form, the 49-minute Intel shareholders’ meeting was something of a nonevent. The company had three proposals from shareholders on the agenda, including resolutions to allow action by written consent put forth by Chevedden.
I missed the live event but listened to a playback. The meeting was run by Intel chairman Andy Bryant, who appeared to be reading from a script. Intel did give five minutes each to present the three proposals and a whole 12 minutes to questions and answers, but the questions were clearly handpicked. Management’s response was fine, though also seemed preprogrammed.
TROUBLING TRENDS
This makes it clear to me that the virtual meeting raises troubling trends, a reason it is opposed by leading shareholder groups like the Council of Institutional Investors and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.
The in-person meeting is the sole opportunity all shareholders have to meet and talk with management. Indeed, at many small and midsize companies, the conversation continues as shareholders talk with management before and after the meeting. They also have the opportunity to ask questions that put management on the spot. These questions can directly influence what management thinks and says.
In difficult situations, the repeated pushback of shareholders can make a difference. Robert Nardelli’s conduct at the 2006 meeting of Home Depot shareholders represented a nadir for shareholder participation, and one that eventually led to Nardelli’s departure. Now, shareholders are expected to participate and be allowed to do so.
Corporate law has always endorsed this idea of give and take. In a famous decision, a Delaware court ruled that an annual meeting had to be held even if the shareholders could act by written consent to make sure that the actions passed.
“The annual meeting may in some instances be a bother to management, or even, though rarely, a strain, but in all events it provides a certain discipline, and an occasion for interaction and participation of a kind,” the court said.
To be sure, these meetings can be a pain, but even the haranguing can be a good thing, forcing management to confront its entrenched biases. The gadflies may be persistent, but they also may be right.
In an attempt to compromise on virtual meetings, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System in 2012 issued a best practices guide for online meetings that recommended posting all of the questions asked to ensure that management received them.
However, one can question whether this fully fixes the problem when there is no in-person interaction. Hybrid meetings that combine in-person and virtual elements seem less of a problem. These allow people to attend their meeting, while also having a virtual component.
BUILDING GOODWILL
Management should also recognize that in-person shareholders’ meetings can be fun and a way for the company to build goodwill with its shareholders. Think about the extravaganza that is the Berkshire Hathaway meeting. Days of talking and showing off the company’s products, including copious amounts of treats from Dairy Queen, a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary.
The Walt Disney Co meeting is also known for highlighting the company’s latest movie or ride. Even children can ask questions; one recent interaction led Disney chief executive Robert Iger to give a private tour of Pixar to a child.
Some companies are local legends where the entire town will gather. It is at these meetings that connections are made between the company and its shareholders.
It is here where perhaps the subtlest objection comes to virtual meetings. By forcing everything onto the Web, we lose the personal interaction. Everyone logs in and watches a preprogrammed set of questions and answers, and then everyone goes away.
Management’s worldview is reaffirmed in the 10 or so minutes it allows for questioning, and there is no engagement except with those investors who own a portion of shares large enough to personally meet with management. It is a modern world that is frightening in its disengagement.
As for Intel, it had its first virtual meeting in 2009. This was actually the first-ever virtual shareholders’ meeting. At the time, the inspector of elections for the meeting praised it as a model for keeping “those mostly obnoxious proponents out of one’s hair.”
However, Intel reversed its practice after shareholders’ complaints, going to a hybrid meeting. (Procter & Gamble also backtracked after complaints.) This year, Intel resurrected the virtual meeting, for unknown reasons.
Let us hope that Intel and these other companies reconsider next year. This is a chance for each of these companies to bond with shareholders, not put them in a digital box.
Steven Davidoff Solomon is a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers