Voting

Why do private shareholders avoid the hassle and confrontation that may be necessary at a company's AGM. I fail to see how private individuals can invest their hard earned money and yet not stand up for their rights and intervene in the governance of their investments when necessary. Are minority shareholders too protected? Do they perhaps not have much to worry about, are they too comfortable within the companies they invest in? Will their returns perhaps not encrease so much that it is worth the effort? Equally I find it strange how investment funds and other institutional shareholders view their obligations of voting at shareholders' meetings as somehow a lesser duty?

The AGMs and EGMs are a perfect venue and the system should not be changed to open up other possibilities for shareholders to intervene, but these venues should be enhanced. How exactly - well that is the dilemma.