Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
I've been to a couple of mutual fund meetings. (They're generally "special" meetings because funds are not required to hold annual meetings; they're usually only held if something requires shareholder approval.)
One was a T Rowe Price meeting. Very informative. Got to talk with Brian Rogers.
The other was some large conglomerate (Legg Mason, perhaps?) It didn't even show the shareholders enough respect to send any board members. Just its lawyer, someone to run the meeting, and as I recall a third person. There was a shareholder initiative, but the fund's attitude was: we've already got enough proxies, we're just here to go through the motions.
I've been to a couple of non-public startup shareholder meetings. In each case, the company had not held its required annual meetings for three years. In one case, the board hired a rent-a-cop, gun included. The first thing the shareholders did at the meeting was see that the guard was removed from the room.
The other company was a situation where there were 11 shareholders, and the board refused not only to hold a shareholder meeting but to informally answer shareholder questions. The board members even said that they would never, ever meet with shareholders.
They were not clear on the concept of control however, because they held only a minority of shares. So we voted them out (via paper resolution, without a meeting), and put a temporary board in place. That board called a special meeting where the old board members simply screamed and kept referring to the legal process as a "coup".
THe sequoia fund meeting is possibly worth attending though they do send out a transcript about 6 months later.I gather its quite big though the only meeting I ever attended was was quite small (about 20 people) I even got an answer to the following question," I understand how Peter Lynch spends his time since he has hundreds of stocks to worry about while you folks only have to worry about 25 so how do you spend your time."
I really don't remember the answer very well though they indicated they were always looking at stocks not held but also thought it was important to know more about the stocks they owned than everyone else. Sadly as a shareholder that did not prove true for the Valeant position.
Comments
I found them quite informative.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/15829/columbia-acorn-shareholders-meeting-9-24-14
One was a T Rowe Price meeting. Very informative. Got to talk with Brian Rogers.
The other was some large conglomerate (Legg Mason, perhaps?) It didn't even show the shareholders enough respect to send any board members. Just its lawyer, someone to run the meeting, and as I recall a third person. There was a shareholder initiative, but the fund's attitude was: we've already got enough proxies, we're just here to go through the motions.
I've been to a couple of non-public startup shareholder meetings. In each case, the company had not held its required annual meetings for three years. In one case, the board hired a rent-a-cop, gun included. The first thing the shareholders did at the meeting was see that the guard was removed from the room.
The other company was a situation where there were 11 shareholders, and the board refused not only to hold a shareholder meeting but to informally answer shareholder questions. The board members even said that they would never, ever meet with shareholders.
They were not clear on the concept of control however, because they held only a minority of shares. So we voted them out (via paper resolution, without a meeting), and put a temporary board in place. That board called a special meeting where the old board members simply screamed and kept referring to the legal process as a "coup".
I'd say those meetings were anything but dull.
I even got an answer to the following question," I understand how Peter Lynch spends his time since he has hundreds of stocks to worry about while you folks only have to worry about 25 so how do you spend your time."
I really don't remember the answer very well though they indicated they were always looking at stocks not held but also thought it was important to know more about the stocks they owned than everyone else. Sadly as a shareholder that did not prove true for the Valeant position.