Earlier this week, General Motors announced the preliminary results of its 2013 annual stockholders meeting. The preliminary voting represented 87.4 percent of eligible votes, with the outcomes as follows:
1. Election Of Directors
Item 1 consisted of the election of directors, with the Director nominees including:
- Daniel F. Akerson
- Stephen J. Girsky
- David Bonderman
- Erroll B. Davis, Jr.
- E. Neville Isdell
- Robert D. Krebs
- Kathryn V. Marinello
- Admiral Michael Mullen
- James J. Mulva
- Patricia F. Russo
- Thomas M. Schoewe
- Theodore M. Solso
- Carol M. Stephenson
- Cynthia A. Telles
Each director received at least 94.0 percent of the votes cast, except for David Bonderman who received 75.0%.
2. Selection Of The Public Accounting Firm
Item 2 consisted of ratifying the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm for 2013.
| % For | % Against | % Abstain |
|---|---|---|
| 98.5 | 1.2 | 0.3 |
3. Advisory Proposal For Executive Compensation
Item 3 surrounded the advisory proposal to approve executive compensation.
| % For | % Against | % Abstain |
|---|---|---|
| 98.2 | 1.3 | 0.5 |
4. Stockholder Proposal For Independent Board Chairman
Item 4 surrounded a stockholder proposal to appoint an independent board chairman.
| % For | % Against | % Abstain |
|---|---|---|
| 35.5 | 63.2 | 1.3 |
5. Stockholder Proposal For Executive Stock Retention
Item 5 surrounded a stockholder proposal regarding executive stock retention.
| % For | % Against | % Abstain |
|---|---|---|
| 19.0 | 80.0 | 1.0 |
As before, General Motors points out that these are only preliminary voting results, and that the final voting results will be filed on Form 8-K with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and posted to www.gm.com within four business days of May 6th, 2013.
Comments
Akerson as CEO and chairman is reason enough for me to not invest in their stock. How many GM shareholders can be okay with the arrangement–especially with HIM at the helm–baffles me.
As others have recently pointed out elsewhere, GM has not regained market share in the US post bankruptcy, more than one all-new model has sold far below sales expectations, marketing has gone from bad to worse, Europe remains a mess, and his fall back through it all has remained: blame the government. It’s time to take off the rose colored glasses.
Market share does not always equal profit. The days of $10,000 rebates just to get sales numbers are gone. GM had way too many years of major $ losses with their higher market share before the bankruptcy – the more cars they sold, the more money they lost. Build an improved car (example: Cruze vs Cobalt) and people will be willing to pay more.
Precisely. Market share for the sake of market share is a GM 1.0 business strategy. GM 2.0 is all about better cars, better customer experience and interactions, and higher profit:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/01/gm-is-focused-on-profitable-growth-not-pointless-market-share-chasing/
Here’s my question to Clifford: in what way can Akerson or any other chairman (executive or non-executive) improve the automaker’s performance that hasn’t been done or isn’t in progress of being done already?
Can’t stop laughing. Guess Clifford doesn’t like to make money. I have been buying since the IPO. Averaged myself down as the stock declined, now reaping the benefits. At $40, I could liquidate and pay off my house
It’s not worth it. Peace.