Capitec’s AGM is to all intents and purposes a catering event. The meeting itself is next to pointless as a means for shareholders to engage with their board of directors. But hang around long enough, and you’ll get access to drinks, food and chat of top quality. Unlike the contents of the actual meeting, which is of incredibly inferior quality.
This means you shouldn’t bother schlepping out to some delightful Stellenbosch-adjacent location to attend the Capitec AGM unless you intend spending at least a few extra hours sipping wine, picking on delightful snacks and schmoozing with the who’s who of the Stellenbosch business community.
In other words, don’t head home straight after the meeting. That would render your whole afternoon pointless.
The AGM lasted just under 45 minutes and was so aggressively chaired that it managed to reveal almost nothing about the company. It wasn’t that there were no questions from shareholders. This year there was a surprising number of excellent questions from several shareholders keen to get a better understanding of how the company is run.
Not much chance of that. Chair Santie Botha seemed strangely irked by every question raised, even the straightforward ones. It was as though she suspected each shareholder of having some dark ulterior motive; perhaps they were hoping to force the board to inadvertently reveal some sinister business strategy?
Each question was directed to the appropriate executive – frequently the new CEO, Graham Lee – who was essentially given less than a minute to deal with it, no matter how complex the matter.
Botha has previously admitted to adhering to Chris Otto’s “keep-it-quick” mantra on these matters, which inevitably means answers are kept so tight they’re meaningless. So, we got no useful response to the question from the University of Cape Town pension fund on how Capitec’s remuneration committee could help prevent executive pay spiralling out of control.
And any time it looked as though answers might stray into meaningful territory, the chair quickly intervened with that trusty old chestnut: “Can I suggest we reach out to you after the meeting and have a proper board discussion.”
Perhaps the most awkward part of the meeting was towards the beginning, when private shareholder Ian Pocock asked, reasonably enough, what was happening about the upgrade of the bank’s internet service. Well, that set the chair off. Rather bizarrely she described Pocock’s approach as “quite aggressive”.
You might remember Pocock was the shareholder who asked whether there was any possibility of a share split at last year’s AGM and was promptly slapped down by outgoing CEO Gerrie Nel, who rather abruptly said: “No.” Perhaps this year Pocock was being tentative rather than abrupt. But as one shareholder told Currency after the meeting: “A lot of South African directors have forgotten who their boss is and often look down on shareholders.”
Maybe in future years the AGM could be held after the drinks and snacks. Everyone might be a little more relaxed.
Blast from the past
The Ninety One AGM, held a week or so earlier, was a totally different affair and from a governance perspective, a far superior one.
Again, it was like a blast from the past from a technical perspective. The company’s name is presumably intended to remind shareholders not to expect any 21st -century glitz and to be grateful for the audio link to the meeting being held in London. Not so much low-tech as no-tech. No frills here.
Access to the meeting is not available to guests. You might be able to get in by invitation, but don’t expect the invite to work on the day. (The Currency invitee was left stranded at the entrance.)
Fortunately, there was absolutely no trouble getting a recording of the meeting, so Currency was able to hear what had gone on. Turns out it was another useful and informative AGM, very much like last year’s. Except, while last year the questions and answers were dominated by issues of sustainability, this year governance issues were briefly dragged into the spotlight. Not so much Ninety One’s governance, but that of one of its investee companies, Anglo American.
However, chair Gareth Penny was determined not to allow one shareholder to use the Ninety One platform to raise issues around the propriety of his involvement in a bid to buy control of De Beers from Anglo American. After a few minutes he cut the sound link to the shareholder and promptly dragged the spotlight back to sustainability, a subject about which CEO Hendrik du Toit is evidently passionate.
Perhaps it’s time to buy a share – then, next year, I won’t have to hang around aimlessly at a virtual door without hope of entry.
ALSO READ:
- Virtual AGMs: dialling down shareholder democracy
- Did Capitec’s Gerrie Fourie really fumble the first-ever AGM question? Why, yes
- AGMs: going online to virtually dodge accountability?
Sign up to Currency’s weekly newsletters to receive your own bulletin of weekday news and weekend treats. Register here.
