“We are about to start the process of reviewing our Remco advisors and would be interested to know which Remco advisors other companies use – and whether they are generally happy with their services.”
in my experience this is something undertaken by the company’s financial adviser/broker after results announcements and fed back to the board. As has been said elsewhere, shareholders are not usually shrinking violets!
FTSE250said
I can see no purpose for this. It is a box that does not need ticking. The executives provide feedback from views expressed by shareholders during meetings after results announcements, our brokers phone ring institutions for feedback following these meetings and shareholders contact the chairman or SID if they have any other concerns. These three mechanisms should be more than sufficient and if they are not it points to more fundamental problems that the board should be solving directly.
FTSE250said
we have found it useful to do an investor audit every 2 to 3 years, using an independent firm. we use Mackinson Cowell, who appear to get good honest feedback and present well back to the Board.
FTSE SMALL CAPsaid
I have worked for several companies where the corporate brokers ring institutions that senior management (CEO/CFO etc) have met during investor roadshows following results announcements, announcements of acquisitions etc with a list of questions. This usually includes both existing institutions and non-investors who may be interested in investing in the company. In my experience feedback is usually very open and the broker can either provide feedback to the Company on a named or an no-named basis. This written feedback can then be shared with the board.
Although not an ‘external audit/assessment’ in substance it does provide feedback on the views of investors on management, strategy etc without incurring any additional costs. Investors will in general have a good relationships with the corporate brokers and should therefore be receptive in giving feedback.
FTSE100said
Every few years we engage an external body to carry out an investor audit. We agree the questions with them in advance and these will cover amongst other things investors’ understanding of, and happiness or otherwise with, our strategy as well as their view of management and its track record of delivery. The questions are addressed to an agreed list of shareholders and also a few investors who don’t hold our shares. The results of the audit are presented at a Board meeting and a written report is also prepared. It is of particular use after, for example, a corporate action or change of strategy. We have traditionally used Makinson Cowell who do a very thorough job but are quite costly. I believe we are reviewing our options for the next one.
FTSE250said
We asked Makinson Cowells to undertake a shareholder engagement exercise and whilst expensive the feedback was very interesting.
FTSE SMALL CAPsaid
This appears to be a case of corporate governance retreating up its own fundament! Assuming there is a programme of regular contact with shareholders (management and NEDs)which allows for dialogue (and in our experience they are not afraid to make their views known) this is generally sufficient to satisfy the engagement agenda. Shareholders who want more will approach the Company, and if they continue to have concerns the AGM offers an annual opportunity to gauge support or otherwise from major shareholders’ voting responses.
in my experience this is something undertaken by the company’s financial adviser/broker after results announcements and fed back to the board. As has been said elsewhere, shareholders are not usually shrinking violets!
I can see no purpose for this. It is a box that does not need ticking. The executives provide feedback from views expressed by shareholders during meetings after results announcements, our brokers phone ring institutions for feedback following these meetings and shareholders contact the chairman or SID if they have any other concerns. These three mechanisms should be more than sufficient and if they are not it points to more fundamental problems that the board should be solving directly.
we have found it useful to do an investor audit every 2 to 3 years, using an independent firm. we use Mackinson Cowell, who appear to get good honest feedback and present well back to the Board.
I have worked for several companies where the corporate brokers ring institutions that senior management (CEO/CFO etc) have met during investor roadshows following results announcements, announcements of acquisitions etc with a list of questions. This usually includes both existing institutions and non-investors who may be interested in investing in the company. In my experience feedback is usually very open and the broker can either provide feedback to the Company on a named or an no-named basis. This written feedback can then be shared with the board.
Although not an ‘external audit/assessment’ in substance it does provide feedback on the views of investors on management, strategy etc without incurring any additional costs. Investors will in general have a good relationships with the corporate brokers and should therefore be receptive in giving feedback.
Every few years we engage an external body to carry out an investor audit. We agree the questions with them in advance and these will cover amongst other things investors’ understanding of, and happiness or otherwise with, our strategy as well as their view of management and its track record of delivery. The questions are addressed to an agreed list of shareholders and also a few investors who don’t hold our shares. The results of the audit are presented at a Board meeting and a written report is also prepared. It is of particular use after, for example, a corporate action or change of strategy. We have traditionally used Makinson Cowell who do a very thorough job but are quite costly. I believe we are reviewing our options for the next one.
We asked Makinson Cowells to undertake a shareholder engagement exercise and whilst expensive the feedback was very interesting.
This appears to be a case of corporate governance retreating up its own fundament! Assuming there is a programme of regular contact with shareholders (management and NEDs)which allows for dialogue (and in our experience they are not afraid to make their views known) this is generally sufficient to satisfy the engagement agenda. Shareholders who want more will approach the Company, and if they continue to have concerns the AGM offers an annual opportunity to gauge support or otherwise from major shareholders’ voting responses.