Oct2018-I'm hearing the FSC (again renamed?), wants to help small shareholders (so-called Retail Shareholders - the ones that Buy/Hold believing in the competence of the Execs steering the Company).
At present, Institutions own most shares, but just trade them...they have no real "interest" in the Co progress - very rarely do they attend AGM's - yet increasingly AGM for FTSE Co's are (IMHO), nothing more than a Legal Requirement - to be finished as soon as the moaners have left. Typically the Resolutions are afreed with Institutions beforehand and Voting is by Poll - so the result is already known - So, why have the AGM?

Many of us have ISAs and Pensions, -we have no say in these investments, since the "ownership" is ANOther.
Also, the tax-wrapper status means that it is difficult to change ISA-providers.

WHAT DO OTHERS THINK?

A major problem I think, is the poor handling of share-ownership... only Certificated shares are counted by the Management - and with Institutions owning the Majority...why trouble with retail shareholders? Yet it is these smaller-owners that have put their own money ( always a risky venture!), into the business. By contrast Institutions are trying to "balance" their portfolios - so if the Sector is Building - it matters not a jot which Company A, B, C they invest in.... and they may try all of them in turn.
They won't attend the AGM, since they've had private-meetings beforehand ( The Video-content which should be placed in the Public Domain IMHO ).
Then we have the "cosy" arrangements between Financials and Auditors . . . something that retail shareholders are much against... as it happens too often a Co goes Bust and the Auditors escape without penalty.
Auditors should be appointed by FSC on a "randomised" basis - so the Company cannot be "cosy" all relationships with Auditors/Accountants/Advisors/Etc. should mean these groups cannot Audit the Company. Also, lists should be made public as to what "Consultancy" the Company is involved in...as too often one suspects it is to paper-over some defect, which might affect sp and Bonuses.
Therein lies another issue...Company bosses being paid far too much for poor performance . . . There should be a ratio of about 20:1 between the lowest-paid employees and the Bosses... since the Boss cannot be worth more than 20x ( there are insufficient hours to work!). Any "bonus" that is paid over this.... should be held in Escrow - a pot of money that they can't touch....for 10 years and only accessible if the retail sp has risen* over that interval. It would be payable in the next five years.
In effect the Bankers and Chancers we have witnesses would not have received a penny, as the sp was falling for most of the time.
* sp movement should include the Market generally - some mechanism that allows a sp to be judged rising, but not because the Market is rising - this may require voting by Groups that are outside/Independent of the Companies - a secret Vote might do- provided the companies being tested are unknown - in an attempt to remove any Self-interest. Companies could be tested against similar-size in the same, or related industries.
What happens to Execs involved in failing companies? - Well, the fact their money is being held-back should make them more open as to any losses. Far too often Execs are hoping "something will turn-up" to cover their loss of a Contract, or a Strike, or Litigation as a result of the Co operational carelessness.

Will UK Government ever give Retail Shareholders a good deal?
Can we eliminate Bosses whose commitment is short-term Bonuses?
Could be believe in British companies competing better round the World, by offering better products, customer-care and value?

Maybe we've heard it before, or several variations . . . .

The words could, believe and maybe always give me pause for thought..and not in a good way Hangon.