6 questions lodged at 2024 Platinum Asset Management hybrid AGM

Q1. How long has our external audit firm been in place, when did we last run a competitive tender for the external audit and when do we next intend to run a competitive tender for the external audit?

Answer: The chair said they changed from PwC to EY 5 years ago after a tender but gave no indication of any future tenders. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q2. What is our view on crypto as an investment class, particularly given Donald Trump's embrace of it as a concept, even potentially committing to a US Government crypto reserve fund? Won't this undermine the US dollar as the global reserve currency and how do we currently handle currency risk? Could this change as the Trump crypto policies roll out and are there any circumstances where we would invest in a crypto currency? If not, why not?

Answer: The chair passed this on to management (with chortles) who explained crypto was not in the Platinum investment mandates which are limited to equities. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q3. Did any of the 5 main proxy advisers - ACSI, Ownership Matters, Glass Lewis, ISS and ASA - recommend a vote against any of today's resolutions, including this remuneration report item? If so, what reasons did they give and will you disclose the proxy votes before the debate on each resolution so shareholders can ask questions about the reasons if there have been any protest votes? Finally, will you disclose the proxy votes to the ASX with the formal addresses at next year's AGM as many other companies now do and why not follow the lead of ASX, Qantas, Suncorp, Tabcorp and many other companies and voluntarily embrace scheme-like voting disclosure which also reveals how many shareholders voted for and against each resolution. This will make public retail shareholder sentiment and insight into Australia's chronically low retail shareholder voting rates.

Answer: The chair gave an excellent summary saying that all proxy advisers except for CGI Glass Lewis recommended against the rem report and ISS recommended against the CEO's LTI grant. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q4. Could new director James Simpson and the chair comment on the recruitment process that led to his appointment to the board. Was a head hunter involved, did the full board interview James and Rachel and did they interview any other candidates? Did James know any of our directors before engaging with the recruitment process?

Answer: The chair explained that he self-nominated and lined up well with the board skill matrix so received a board recommendation. First time a challenging candidate has ever scored more than 95% in favour. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q5. That's a massive second strike with 51% against. It was disappointing you didn't follow last year's practice and disclose the proxies earlier with the formal addresses. Corporate voting is not a secret ballot. Did Kerr Neilson help trigger the board spill vote by voting his stake against the remuneration report. If so, why did he do this at a time when the board is backing his man James Simpson's election to the board today?

Answer: The chair claimed not to know how Kerr Neilson voted or would vote, which was disingenuous. He ended up voting against the rem report from the floor in the poll. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Q6. Are you saying that Kerr Neilson's stake is in the room and likely to vote for the rem report and against this item?

Answer: The chair wouldn't say after earlier suggesting floor votes might overcome the 51% proxy protest vote and avoid a second strike. In the end Kerr Neilson went the other way, magnifying the protest to 73% rather than saving the second strike. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.

Copyright © 2024 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved

• share
  Share
  • 
    Facebook
  • 
    Twitter
  • email
    Email
  • print
    Print
  • link
    Copy Link
  • cancel
    Cancel