Yes, absolutely correct. Everyone knows votes can be changed up to the last minute. (I mentioned that in my initial post)
Interesting facts:
Some shareholders are not even aware that there is an ASM coming up.
Some don’t know the issues: you devote a section in the compiled DD on the items up for vote and reasons to vote yes.
Wonder how many know that they can change their vote if they don’t even know the process for voting?
And, wonder how many actually DO change votes after casting? Do you really think it’s that common?
Well, since we discuss computational science and AI on the board quite a bit when referring to trial outcomes, isn’t it possible that firms can use data from previous proxy votes to determine how each person voted in previous years as a weather vane, whether their position has been enlarged or reduced, if they are a likely “switcher” ( from historical data) ,and if they vote at all?
I believe this can all be ascertained by a computer within a day and can run up to the minute with little maintenance (am positive, in fact.)
Would M be the kind of guy to use historical data as a predictor of current/future performance and know the level of confidence? Don’t know - others post on that much more than I.
Seems some believe precision everything is his M.O.
Why not with proxy-ing the preferreds?
He doesn’t assume and he doesn’t like surprises, imo.
Additionally, so...why has there been radio silence up until now, and with a proxy in the near term holding much at stake, he decides to unleash PR about an article which he doesn’t have to release? That move stumps me.
Some folks are just hard to decipher and some moves can’t explained?
