• Mike Spelman

    After performing hundreds of legitimate N&A analyses, it is quite clear that most Issuers will not save anything engaging in N&A, and in many instances, will actually spend more NOT to print and mail. This is a result of the ancillary N&A fees combined with the fixed costs that are not eliminated under Broadridges pricing proposals.

    The cost comparisons provided by many of the Broadridge Representatives are completely inaccurate and contain inflated printing and postage expenses in an effort to illustrate the efficiencies of N&A. Their use of $4.00 per unit for printing and the $.60 delta for postage is absolutely comical! They are not even close on both fronts. In addition, their analsyis does NOT include the hard copy material that is required to be produced, or mailed!!!

    There are plenty of ways Issuers can save significantly throughout the process. They include:
    Vendor consolidation.
    Reduction in paper weight to reduce manufaturing, material and postage costs.
    Combining the Proxy Statement with the Annual Report to create a single, self contained document, thus reducing manufacturing costs.
    Mail all material Standard A as opposed to First Class.
    Providing printers with print ready files and avoid costly typesetting expenses.

    For those companies with several hundreds of thousands of shareholders, N&A makes a little more sense, but to the vast majority of Issuers, it is a complete waste of time and money.

  • http://www.corpgov.net/news/news.html James McRitchie

    I like Jones’ idea that companies should maintain a minimal level of voting to continue eproxy and that much of the problem lies in presentation – investors won’t read materials designed for paper online. A study cited by InvestorRelationships.com, which has some excellent recommendations for making materials more user friendly, found that 61% of website visitors who identified themselves as retail investors chose to use an HTML version of an annual report when both HTML and PDF were provided to them.

    I also like Aguilar’s call for a federal advisory committee to make recommendations for improving retail investor participation in Commission business and for improving the usefulness to retail investors of Commission rules. I wrote to Aguilar recommending Mark Latham, of VoterMedia.org, for that advisory committee. Of course, I also like Aguilar’s support of proxy access and his statement that a 5% threshold is too high. I have been advocating a 3% or 100 shareowner threshold level.

  • Pingback: Companies using web for shareholder meeting questions | IR Web Report

  • Pingback: Is SEC’s “prohibition on cookies” crimping US web reports? | IR Web Report

  • Pingback: Communicating executive pay information on the web | IR Web Report