Is Symantec's decision to scrap live shareholders' meeting good or bad? [poll]

Symantec, maker of the Norton Anti-virus software products, will not be welcoming its shareholders into a nice hotel ballroom for an annual meeting. Instead, the company will hold a virtual meeting - and that has some shareholders upset.

In a statement, the United States Proxy Exchange, a non-partisan advocacy group that fights for shareholders' rights, said that Symantec's decision to scrap the live meeting "has the appearance of embattled executives hiding from shareowners."

The group notes that Symantec is within its rights to hold a virtual meeting - but uses some pretty loaded language to express its discontent with this decision, noting that only a handful of small corporations have "exploited" the law, using "crude software" on the Internet.

I don't know that I would agree with such a statement - but I also don't know the type of software Symantec is using. Virtual meeting software has come a long way and it actually has the potential to enhance shareholder participation.

What I do know is that there's an expense to hosting those annual meetings and, given the small number of them I've ever attended, it seems that the crowds are usually pretty thin - unless there's some sort of compelling reason for attendance.

By holding a virtual meeting, the company stands to save some money and possibly increase participation. The idea that a virtual meeting will limit shareholder participation seems like a stretch.

[poll id="143"]