Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

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

By | September 7, 2010, 12:55pm PDT

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

As a shareholder, would you be OK with a company holding a virtual meeting instead of a physical one?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Sam has been a technology and business blogger for more than 18 years.

Disclosure

Sam Diaz

Sam Diaz has nothing to disclose.

Biography

Sam Diaz

Sam has been a technology and business blogger, reporter and editor at ZDNet, the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News and Fresno Bee for more than 18 years. He's a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and a graduate of California State University, Fresno.

Talkback Most Recent of 10 Talkback(s)

  • Missing option...
    There is no option for having the ability to attend the real meeting or the virtual meeting.

    I'd like it, mainly because I have a bundle of shares in another country, so attending the meetings is never cost effective. That said, I'd still like the ability to turn up in person, if there was a serious matter to discuss...
    ZDNet Gravatar
    wright_is
    8th Sep 2010
  • Give Shareholders the Choice
    Horrible idea.

    In-person shareholder meetings serve multiple purposes beyond just allowing stockholders to ask questions of leadership (which, of course, can be done online). They're also a way to put a human face on leadership, and a pep rally to make stockholders feel as though they're a part of something big.

    I agree with United States Proxy Exchange; regardless of what a company's true motives are, completely removing the in-person makes it appear that leadership doesn't want to face shareholders.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ParrotHead_FL
    8th Sep 2010
  • RE: Is Symantec's decision to scrap live shareholders' meeting good or bad? [poll]
    One difference between a live meeting versus a virtual meeting is you can see what the moderator is doing in a live meeting if there is one. The shareholder is relinquishing their trust in that the company will address their questions or have the ability to approach the individuals in a one on one atmosphere. Granted a 1on1 may not happen 100% of the time, but having the opportunity as compared to the ambiguous nature of a virtual setting illustrates an environment of open dialog.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    bkhsms
    8th Sep 2010
  • Those Voting Yes Lack Imagination
    Just because you went to a meeting last year (or many meetings over many years) that was uneventful doesn?t mean that can?t change. Sorry, but your vote shows a lack of imagination all too common in today?s shareowners. Have you read Lewis Gilbert?s book (http://corpgov.net/wordpress/?p=1621)?

    Gilbert used to attend meetings with pockets full of proxies given over to him so that he could vote based on events at the meeting? he could even make motions from the floor. While you can?t make motions from the floor at most meetings these days because of advance notice requirements, proxies can still be assigned and meetings could actually involve deliberations. See, for example, http://www.contingencyanalysis.com/home/papers/suffrage.pdf.

    I?m not totally opposed to all-virtual meetings. However, if shareowners are going to give up face-to-face contact, we should get something in return. For example, perhaps we should know all the questions that shareowners raised during the meeting so we can see if questions were cherry picked. We don?t have that right now; we don?t even have the legal right to ask questions.

    Gary Lutin recently held a forum on e-meetings http://www.shareholderforum.com/e-mtg/index.htm. The USPX http://proxyexchange.org/ will soon hold another that may go into further depth because shareowners will actually vote on best practices.

    Abolishing annual meetings is not the answer.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    corpgovnet
    8th Sep 2010
  • Shareholders . . .
    Shareholders running a company was frankly never a good idea to begin with. A gazillion random people who may not even use the company's products - they're in it just for the money.

    Even worse, many shares are being bought and sold by computer algorithms designed to make money, not by people at all.

    IMO corporations should be run by their customers, not their shareholders.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    CobraA1
    9th Sep 2010
  • The inmates running the asylum
    @CobraA1: Interesting--but flawed--logic. Shareholders are the owners of the companies. For better or worse, the owners get to decide how companies are run.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ParrotHead_FL
    9th Sep 2010
  • RE: Is Symantec's decision to scrap live shareholders' meeting good or bad? [poll]
    @ParrotHead_FL

    Somebody with a Roth IRA may have portions of it in stocks or mutual funds and "own" part of a corporation, even though the only real reason for the IRA is to provide retirement income and the person is extremely unlikely to care about whatever companies the IRA is invested in.

    I don't really care if technically speaking, it's ownership. It's still a mess. The owners are largely disconnected from the company and only a few are really likely to care about what the company is or what it stands for. Yeah, I'd still call it broken.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    CobraA1
    9th Sep 2010
  • Ownership
    Agreed, but there's no way to fix that. Each share of stock earns its owner a vote, regardless of whether that owner makes an educated decision. It's not unlike the U.S. election system, which doesn't limit voting only to informed citizens.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    ParrotHead_FL
    10th Sep 2010
  • RE: Is Symantec's decision to scrap live shareholders' meeting good or bad? [poll]
    Took me time so that you can go through the complete document, the content material is wonderful then again the remarks supply substantially a lot more cheap jerseys brainstorm creative ideas, quite a few many thanks.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jackson1984-24316069205748857739440257893812
    10th Oct
  • RE: Is Symantec's decision to scrap live shareholders' meeting good or bad? [poll]
    We had been executing a homework and uncovered this webpage. I confess that this beneficial posting is on amount! mulberry bags Constantly always keep it up. I'll be subsequent your content material
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tomlin21-24319035676893835085146735905770
    11th Oct

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources