Ep. 253: Jonathan Smalley - Proxy Voting Makeover: Shaking Things Up with Digital Transformation

< Intro >

– Welcome to Count Me In.

I'm your host, Adam Larson,
and in today's episode,

we're diving into the world
of shareholder engagement

with Jonathan Smalley,
co-founder at Proximity.

We'll uncover why strengthening

shareholder engagement
is more crucial than ever,

and why it's imperative for navigating

the upcoming political landscape.

From climate change to the rising
influence of retail shareholders.

We'll explore the global factors
impacting shareholder engagement,

and the shift towards
digitalizing proxy voting.

Jonathan shares valuable insights

on bridging the gap in
shareholder communication,

and the potential benefits
for organizations.

Get ready to gain a deeper understanding

of the challenges and opportunities,

in shareholder engagement.

< Music >

– Well, Jonathan, I'm really excited
to have you on the podcast today.

And we're going to be talking
about shareholder engagement,

which is something not
everybody touches, necessarily,

but it's a very important
part of your organization.

Especially if you have
a board or shareholders,

if you're a public company.

And, so, what makes strengthening
shareholder engagement more critical,

now than ever, for smoother
investor relations.

Especially as we're going into 2024 here,

as we're recording at the end of 2023.

What makes that so important, right now?

– Yes, firstly, thanks for having me, Adam.

Yes, I'd say it's more critical than ever,

but I'd say it's been critical
for quite a long time.

But when we look at what's
behind us and what's ahead,

there are some really big global
factors that are not going away.

That are continuing to
heat things up, I feel like.

I think as we head into 2024,

also, it's the biggest political
election year, globally, ever.

Big elections in the U.S.,
India, South Korea, Mexico,

likely to be one in the United Kingdom.

And a lot of the factors, actually, that
re going to impact political elections

are going to be considerations
when people go to the ballot box,

are actually also
transferable to the boardroom,

or to the annual general meeting hall.

Things like climate change is
not going to surprise people,

but that is something
that is extremely topical

and is a key part of
issuer-shareholder engagement.

Just this year, both inside
the U.S. and outside,

more shareholding [Indistinct]
climate proposals than last year.

And there are groups that cite
that as financially material

to their investment decisions now.

And not just people on the street,
but powerful, influential,

institutional investor groups have got
together and made that determination.

And they're not just asking issuers

obviously, the regulators
are also calling for disclosures.

It's also their service providers
that are asking to do more.

They want net zero policies.

They want better climate integration
into things like voting policies.

And another one that's
been heating things up

for a long time now is Say-on-Pay,.

94% now of S&P 1500 companies

have a Say-on-Pay vote every single year.

Ten years ago that would have been
about 50%, so it's a big increase.

And, I think, this year they,
against recommendations

from the leading two
vote, advisors went down,

but less against recommendations.

But those resolutions got less
support this year than last year.

So that makes those contests quite frequent.

And, then, I think, kind of linked
to the climate change thing.

You've got ESG versus increasing
anti ESG, pretty polarized,

and I think that's also something.

As I sort of mentioned before,

is going to also play out in
political elections as well,

not just in company elections.

And then I'd say that the
big kicker to all of that

is that we're just seeing
year on year more votes,

particularly, more votes
from retail shareholders.

Institutional shareholder
voting has been quite high

for a number of years now
because of active ownership,

because of stewardship of
codes, because of regulation.

Retail, as a rule of thumb, has always
been 20, 25% maybe in a contest

a little bit higher than that.

So there's clearly much
more room for that to go into.

And we've got some brokers going,

"We're getting 30% a
year on year increase."

Some retail shareholders voting,

and that's coming at a time where
we're going through millennials

and Gen Z's inheriting anywhere
between $68 to $84 billion.

And millennials, at the moment,

are the most likely
generational group to vote.

So big issues against the backdrop

of a great wealth transfer, heading into
a year that is going to be, probably,

more politically charged
than any we've seen

across all the democratic
countries, in the world,

that are going to go to the polls.

So I think engaging shareholders

and having an efficient way for
companies and shareholders

to communicate back and forth

is going to be more
important than ever before,

just because there's
so much more coming.

And I think we'll get on to maybe
the technology a little bit later.

But if you look at the legacy ecosystem

about the way companies
and shareholders communicate,

we urgently need to
upgrade that to deal with this.

Because it's a good thing for
companies and shareholders

to communicate back and forth.

We should be allowing
it efficiently and digitally.

And if we don't, and we're not
ready for what's coming,

then, there's going to be more
negative headlines, I think,

for companies to be worried about.

As those general meetings debate

and have voted on very important
decisions for the company.

– Yes, it's great how you outline
all the different political factors.

All the things happening around
the world, that are causing

more and more shareholders
to become more engaged.

And before we get to
the technology piece,

maybe, you could elaborate a
little more about the importance

of that communication between
shareholders, in the organization.

How it can impact a company's overall
performance and even reputation?

– Yes, I mean, starting with the
reputational piece, it's probably easier

to talk about the downside, sometimes,

because, then, that's the
thing that creates headlines.

It creates headlines
when results are challenged.

When there's uncertainty
about the results.

And we saw a fairly infamous case a
few years ago, at the P&G's meeting,

votes counted three times and it
was a different result every time.

And you're like, "How could that be?"

And that was very expensive,

both for the company,
it was an activist situation.

It was expensive
anyway for the campaign,

as well as casting doubt on
the whole underlying result.

But we also see that where
it's maybe not just a mistake,

but it's the fact that the issuer
has got something wrong.

I mean, the one that comes up in the UK,

has come up several times,
is Sports Direct.

Which is the UK equivalent
to Dick's Sporting Goods.

It's a household name.

It's a consumer business.

But there've been in the headlines
for all sorts of the wrong reasons.

Revolt against the CEO
and the principal owner.

Couldn't appoint an
auditor for a period of time.

So I think that having good
shareholder engagement

can in many ways keep
companies out of the headlines.

I think, going back to the question, though,

how can it positively impact a
company's performance and reputation?

I think it's important to have
a loyal base of shareholders.

I think that's, especially, true

for consumer businesses,
that can be a big plus.

And I think how many people have
invested in crowdfunding scenario,

where they're also using
that product or service,

and that actually seeps into other areas.

You can easily see somebody holding
a stock in their brokerage account

because they like the products
or services they're consuming.

And loyal shareholders, generally,
mean you've got a resilient base.

In the prosperous times, you
could take that for granted.

But when we go through other
parts of the economic cycle,

having a loyal shareholder base

is something that can help make the
underlying share price resilient.

And that's both true
in terms of retail shareholders

and institutional investors.

A lot of the institutional
investors are extremely engaged,

extremely active owners, doing
thousands of engagements a year.

And more likely to make
a positive determination,

on companies that engage shareholders

regularly and in meaningful ways.

And in terms of tracking
that to performance,

it's been proven by lots of studies,

about how the importance of an
outside perspective of active owners,

particularly, active institutional investors,

can be to helping the board
and management deal with

what I'd call moments that matter.

On any given year, what might be
on the slate, for a general meeting,

might be fairly boilerplate.

But there will be those
big moments that matter.

Those big dilemmas, where
it's important to have a way

to very efficiently engage
your shareholder base

so that you can get the right
outcome for the company.

And, so, I think all those
three things go together.

It's hard to make an argument that
not engaging your shareholders

and having that easy way to access
them, is ever going to be a bad thing.

– Mh-hmm, well, and I imagine

with the shifting of the
wealth, as you mentioned.

It's no longer just a bunch of
very high wealthy people

making their voices heard
because they're a shareholder

and they may have more
shares than others.

But because so many people in
the launch of many different apps,

and it's like the common person

is having that access to those
shares and being able to buy stock.

I think of organizations like,
in the U.S., the Green Bay Packers,

as a fan, you can go buy
a share in the team

and go to the share
meeting at the stadium.

So it's becoming more
common for people.

So when you have that
open communication,

it's going to be a double-edged sword.

People will be excited about things,

but then you'll also hear their voices
when they're not happy about things.

But it helps you grow as an
organization, as well, I imagine.

– Yes, and I think the last
thing any company or organization,

for that matter, wants is for
that dissent to play out publicly.

In either a general meeting or
in the result of a general meeting.

It makes sense to have
those conversations early.

To have those conversations
throughout the year.

And I think as we look to
digitize not just proxy voting,

but investor relations, in general,
it does open up the ability

to not just have a once a year,

en masse engagement
with all your shareholders.

But to, actually, easily, engage the
opinions and views of everybody,

and that's just about risk
management, if you like.

Or, on the flip side, looking for
where they might have input

that you hadn't already thought
about, outside perspectives.

Everybody, I think, appreciates

the power of diverse skills,
diverse opinions.

Well, there can be nothing more diverse

than getting the opinion
of all your shareholders.

Whether it's the biggest, most
powerful asset managers in the world,

down to people with handfuls of stocks

in their brokerage accounts
or pension funds.

– Mh-hmm, yes, that
makes a lot of sense.

So you've been hinting
at things like technology,

and that there's huge gaps
in how people communicate.

I know when I get notices in the mail

for voting for certain shares,
I have in my 401K.

It's this mailer, with this huge booklet,

and you're like looking
through, trying to figure out,

"I don't even know what
I'm looking at here."

So maybe we could talk a little bit about

what are some of the huge gaps
that are happening right now,

that are hampering this engagement.

Then we can get into talking about

what are some solutions
that people can have.

– Yes, sure, I mean,
everybody knows the mail,

the proxies in the mail.

Almost everybody's got
one of those things,

and it's probably on the
kitchen table somewhere.

The way I think about the
technology gaps is in two big buckets.

Firstly, is structural, and then
secondly is more the modalities.

By structural, and this is where
we initially started out,

several years ago,
on the Proximity journey,

was the way that shares are
held through the ecosystem.

It was not designed, it was not
optimized, for communication.

I mean, it probably
wasn't even an afterthought.

The way shares are held is all
designed to make efficient

things like settlement and
the holding of securities.

So I always describe it like
looking at the layers of an onion.

Right at the center, you've got the
central securities depository.

So in the U.S., the DTCC, but name
any country around the world,

it's a similar type organization.

Who owns what at a central level,

but only who owns what of
the next layer in the onion.

And then the next layer in the onion

knows who the next set
of intermediaries are.

So between any issuer, at the
center of the onion, and an investor,

there can be six, seven, eight
intermediaries or service providers.

Now, they're all adding value to
each other, that's why it exists,

but it's optimized for something else.

It's not optimized for communication.

And, then, when we go and
try and lay on top of that,

things like proxy voting or any
form of investor communication,

that's when we get problems.

Because they're all having to
communicate through each other,

and that means things like transmission

of information is delayed, it can be
distorted, it erodes decision time.

And it, generally, makes the
whole thing for the two-end users,

the companies and the shareholders,
less transparent than it should be.

So they're not communicating directly,
they're having to communicate

through this quite labyrinth-like
ecosystem, that's the first problem.

We can't do anything about it, our
structure exists for very good reasons

and very technical reasons, as well.

As well as just reasons about trying
to keep the marketplace efficient

and cheap for people
to hold and buy shares.

But we can, with modern technology,
do something to move ourselves out

from having to navigate
irectly through it.

The second big bucket
is all about modalities,

and there is like a weird and
wonderful mix of the way proxies

get voted throughout the world.

You mentioned mail, but I
think it would surprise people

that at some point in a vote's journey,

from a shareholder to issuer,

it's almost certainly being put on a
spreadsheet and attached in an email,

and sent from one party to another.

Now, you might think there's
nothing particularly wrong with that.

But when you're doing it at scale,

and when you think how
important that vote might be.

To the outcome of a meeting for one
of the biggest companies in the world,

or even a small, medium-sized company

that's contributing
meaningfully to the economy,

in which that company exists.

You can easily appreciate, why they
have as a margin for error there,

and that margin for error means
some votes are not getting counted,

or some votes are just
being cast the wrong way,

and that distortion shouldn't
happen, it's inefficient.

You could take it to extremes,

I remember doing
a project, many years ago,

in an Eastern European country,

and the dominant way shares got
voted was through a paddle board.

So you would have people have
to attend the meeting physically.

They'd have to pre-register
a number of shares,

and they would see the paddle
board with a number on.

And when the chair of the meeting

would call out the resolution, they
would raise the paddle for or against.

And to prepare for the meeting,

they would have to take all the votes
from all of their underlying clients,

whether that be intermediary clients

or, ultimately, directly
from some investors.

They would have to put those
votes into unique sequences.

And then if they had ten unique
sequences across the meeting,

they'd have to send five people

because one person can
only hold two paddle boards

at any one moment in time.

And this wasn't even that long ago.

Now, that's, obviously,
an extreme example.

But all those modalities create
this very complex ecosystem,

that it's hard to get shares voted,

and we're talking Excel, we're talking mail.

In some very developed markets,

we're still talking about some voting
instructions going over fax machines,

we're talking about physical
attendance, powers of attorney.

So if you then take the structure

and the fact that we're using so
many legacy communication tools.

There's a reason why investors

are not having to vote many
days before the real deadline.

There's a reason why it's very
hard for investors to work out—

"Did the vote, get to where it should
have got to, and get counted?"

And there's a reason why issuers
are going, "Where are the votes?"

Until the very last minute
because there's so much friction

in that ecosystem, so many
different people involved.

And, so, many different
communication modalities

or methods, it takes a while to
get that information to them,

so they're the big gaps.

And I think to layer on top of that,

like I said, every country
is slightly different.

And it's also that nuance
that makes it fairly difficult,

then, to make meaningful
progress quickly.

But I'm a big believer
that lots can be done,

and I think we've seen lots of
progress over the last few years.

And, certainly, that's Proximity's
mission is people shouldn't have

to worry about this stuff.

We should be
optimizing the experience

for companies and shareholders.

And we should be doing a better job,
as an industry, about making

their experience tangibly and
meaningfully better.

– Yes, I mean, if we can make
affordable glass phones,

like that Samsung phone,
if we can make those things,

we should be able to make
shareholder relations

and proxy voting so
much simpler than it is.

And, so, maybe you can talk a little bit
about that digital transformation

for proxy voting, and maybe a little
bit of what you guys are doing

to help bridge that gap,
that you just went over.

Because I think that's
important to understand;

how can that gap be bridged and what
people can do to take the next step?

– Yes, absolutely, and, I think, just
remarking on the experience

for a retail and institutional investor.

I think to link it to our earlier
discussion about how

about how to engage retail
shareholders more meaningfully.

Often, historically, we've given retail
shareholders the same tools

that institutions have had, and
there are institutional investors

that are professional, and resourced,

and have corporate
governance professionals,

and lawyers look over this stuff.

You and I don't have those
resources, nor do we have that time.

So giving me a proxy in the mail,

is not going to get me to
participate in the same way

or to the same level as the
institutional investor community does.

So it's all about also thinking about
how do we adapt the experience.

In terms of how can we improve things

and how have we improved things,

for us, it's been, firstly,
about kind of reimagine

the process and turn it around.

So what was happening?

Companies would decide

what the general meeting
agenda was going to be.

They'd send that to their
service provider of choice.

Who'd then send that on
to the first layer of banks.

Who'd send it onto the next layer of banks.

Who'd send it, ultimately,
find its way to the investor.

And then the investor would vote,

and it would have to go back through
the layers, all the way to the issuer.

What we said is let's take out
the layers, as the first step.

Let's take the data we need from
those financial intermediaries,

that we all hold our shares through,

and all institutional investors
hold their investments through,

and figure out the pathway
between an issuer and an investor.

So that as soon as we
handle the information,

it's going all the way to the
shareholder straight away,

with their confirmed
reconciled voting amount.

We're not having to work
that out after the fact.

And there's a split
between some markets,

whereby your right to vote was
crystallized before you got the proxy.

And there's some markets in the world,

where actually you get the votable agenda

before your entitlement is determined.

So our solution is compatible with both.

That means we can get the information

to the shareholder much faster.

So straight away we give
them extra decision time.

And because we're taking the information,

the meeting information, directly from
the company or from their agent,

we're not relying on
third party data vendors.

And we did a survey this year,

25% to 33% of investors were
saying that the meeting agenda

they, ultimately, got was either
distorted or missed data,

and the most common reason
was the detail was stripped away.

So it was very hard for me to figure out,

ultimately, was I voting on the right thing?

I was missing the information
I needed to make a decision.

So our approach means
get the information faster.

We give them golden source data
that nobody else needs to touch.

That means they can then
vote back much sooner.

And because when they vote back,

we can give that directly to the issuer

because we've created that
digital ownership pathway,

we don't have to send the vote

back through any other
layers in the system.

So the issuer, actually, now has the
potential to get the vote much earlier

than they historically would have got it.

And, therefore, if that doesn't
match what they're expecting,

or their engagement that they'd had prior,

or their investor relations
communications, there's more time

to do something about it.

There's more time to have another
engagement, another conversation.

Which in our opinion, can only be positive.

And a final benefit of that is
because we've simplified the process,

the companies can confirm,

for the first time, to the
shareholders that we got the vote.

The vote got counted, the vote is
going to be confirmed in the meeting.

That missing feedback
is an inherent pain point

inefficiency of the old way of doing it.

Because it was so hard to
communicate through the layers

and through so many different methods,

it was impossible to finally
confirm back the vote got counted.

And the results are important,
kind of, what were the results?

I mean, when we did the very first

Minimum Viable Product of
Proximity, many years ago,

we were able to give nine
extra days decision time.

And the typical calendar
for a general meeting

is about a calendar month, maybe,
maximum, two calendar months,

it depends on the market,
it depends on the company,

so nine days is very meaningful.

For an institutional investor,

they need to get the meeting
information confirmed

before they go off and do the research

and decide how to vote.

Many of them have levels
of automation around that,

but many of them also
have the automation

and have a very diligent review process.

"How are we going
to vote at this company,

that we have a very sizable,
meaningful investment?"

It's a serious business for them.

Give them nine extra days,
they can do a more thorough job.

And for retail investors like you and I,

I don't have a ton of time
to vote my proxies.

But if you can give me more time,
it's surely only going to be helpful

to drive my participation up,

as well as if you can give me
a better experience, as well,

a more tailor-made
kind of retail experience.

And it's not just shareholders
that stand to gain, as I mentioned,

for issuers, they don't have to wait

until the very last minute to get the votes,

and that's a kind of inherent
inefficiency of the current system.

They can get the votes
as soon as they're cast.

They can see, is that
going to meet quorum?

They can see if that matches their ROI
conversations or their engagements,

and they can see if it spells trouble,

so they've got time to
do something about it.

And trouble is, "Well, my shareholders

don't agree with the decisions
we're making, so I might need to go

and speak to them."

And, again, I think that
can only be a good thing.

So really simplifying
the process, at its core,

and optimizing the experience
just has benefits for everybody,

and that's kind of speaks to our mission.

– Yes, it allows for more
time to make better decisions

because if you get something in the
last moment because of delays,

or the mailers, or whatever, you
don't have as much time to make

a more informed decision.

So you're allowing to make
better and informed decisions,

which, in essence, helps the
organization, in the long run,

because you can vote with
a more informed decision.

So have you seen, in your research,
as you've worked with organizations,

is there a direct correlation
between good shareholder relations

and the company's financial
performance or market perception?

Is there a direct correlation
between those things?

– Yes, for Proximity,
it's probably too early.

So we've been in business
for three and a half years now,

progressively scaled up during that time.

We have, in some markets, now,

70% of institutional votes
coming through our platform,

so I think now we have that data

about levels of
engagement, levels of voting.

You can then start to track that
against financial performance.

But, obviously, there are
many different elements

that go into shareholder engagement

over and above proxy, and
obviously, many different things

that can happen to a company's
financial performance.

So it does take a careful
data analysis for us to do.

I think the most comprehensive
study I've read was one

by one of the big consultancy
firms, I think it was Deloitte.

I think it was kind of a study of studies,

and they looked at 60 odd studies
and 120 relationships directly,

and their conclusion
was fairly unanimous.

That good shareholder engagement,

and good governance, particularly
variables like board independence,

board diversity, oversight,
the ownership structure.

When those things were good,

those companies performed good,
both financially and non-financially.

I think most people can understand

how having active institutional investors,

giving outside perspectives, is
going to be good for a company.

How having a board that's
independent and diverse,

with diverse skills and backgrounds

is going to be good, and how
having a a remuneration policy

that rewards management
and rewards the CEO,

when the company does well, but
also thinks about how to incentivize

in the harder times, as well.

One of the things is when we go
through a diffrent economic cycle,

giving management
stock options all the time

is, obviously, not going to incentivize them

because sometimes there's
just nothing they can do.

So I think levels of engagement
and good governance,

that comprehensive study was,
overwhelmingly, tied, strongly,

to financial and
non-financial performance.

Isolating that specifically for;

how many people voted
at my general meeting?

How engaged my retail shareholders are?

I think it's too early to say.

But as we get data and
easier access to the data,

as we get rid of some of those
legacy communication modalities,

where it's very hard to then
sort through all that data.

If actually shares were voted and
tabulated from 12 different methods,

I think it will be easier to answer
your question more decisively.

But I think that the underlying
factors speak for themselves,

in terms of should a
company do it or not?

– As we go into an increasingly
technological world,

we're becoming more
and more reliant on it.

Have there been concerns about security,

when it comes to proxy voting in this
manner that you've been discussing?

Obviously, when they're doing the mailers,

they don't know that it's
getting to the right place,

they don't know who's sending it back.

There probably wasn't very much security

in the old way of doing it either.

But have there been concerns
brought up about the security,

when it comes to doing
this type of process?

– I mean, our customers
hold us to a very high bar

in terms of due diligence
in terms of information security

because what we're dealing
with is very important.

But I think you kind of
touched on some of the areas

where, provided we're
serious about what we do,

and we take all the best
practice around that,

around subsequent information security.

We hold ourselves to a high
standard in terms of auditing,

and whoever does it,

whoever's, ultimately, digitizing
proxy voting does the same.

We're infinitely better off than
the world that we've inherited.

People might think
there's a natural resilience

to paper, and Excel, and many
different manual methods,

but actually that's where you're
more likely to have an error,

or an issue, or an oversight, or
something that just doesn't get there.

I think you have many more options

when things are digitized on platforms,

in databases that can be backed up,

that can have several levels of
resiliency to them, built in by design.

But it's like any election,

there is the potential for bad
actors to become involved,

as we've maybe seen in some of the
political elections of years gone by.

– Mh-hmm, yes, that
makes a lot of sense.

I mean, as long as you're taking
up to the highest standards,

you do the best you can.

Because if hackers are hackers,
and there'll be always be hackers,

but you do the best you can with
security in the midst of all that.

– Yes, and I think for
companies, as you would expect,

the general meeting
is a very important event,

and it's a very, I'd say high-risk,
event, in general, for most COSECs,

and most investor relations professionals,

for the CFO, for the directors,
for the CEO, as you'd expect.

So they take it seriously,
we take it seriously,

and I think the rest
of the financial community

takes this bit of the industry
proxy voting very seriously.

But we're in an infinitely better place

if we have things accurately,
digitized in modern systems

than we do by having it
strewn across legacy methods.

There will always be bad actors,

our job is to be resilient against them.

– Yes, so as we wrap up the conversation,

what's some advice you
could give to companies

that they should be doing now
to prepare for future challenges?

And if they're thinking
about switching proxy voting

to this type of platform that
you've been discussing, like yours,

what should they be looking for?

– Yes, I think the first piece of
advice is that it's not a big switch

that needs to be pressed.

The ecosystem can still support
all of the methods, today,

there is just a new way to do this,

and, over time, the old
methods will slowly fade away,

particularly things like mail,
particularly things like fax,

you're just going to see less of that.

I think the other kind of what
I would call like fake electronic

will be kind of slower to hit the wayside.

But using a platform like Proximity

is completely compatible with
the old way of doing it as well.

It's just that, over time, you're
going to see more votes

coming through a platform like ours

than you do through
some of the old methods,

so it doesn't need to be that big move.

And kind of linked to
my kind of prior comments,

we understand it's a high risk event,

so doing a big bang migration
from one way of doing it,

which, for all of its flaws, has worked
in commerce for the past decades,

to a completely new way is also probably
not the right way for many companies.

So a simple adoption of
a digital voting platform

that can provide a highway
through to your end investors

can start as just a new channel.

And then over the fullness of time
can become the dominant channel,

and that's what we're seeing
in some of the markets

that we're most progressed in.

As soon as we get over that 50%
of share cap voted to our platform,

that is a real tipping
point for many issuers.

So I think that's the first thing,

is it doesn't need to be that big,
scary, big bang migration,

that almost everybody in the corporate
world is slightly apprehensive of,

for understandable reasons.

It can just be about giving
yourself additional optionality,

which immediately brings benefits.

So I think that's the major
thing to navigate through this,

and to do that now, the big factors
at the top of our conversation

I think everyone can
appreciate are not going away.

So it's never been more important
to engage with all the shareholders,

from the biggest institutional
investors, in your companies,

right through to the retail shareholders

that are showing more and more appetite

for engagement than they ever have.

– Well, Jonathan, thank you so much

for coming on the podcast, today.

I encourage our listeners to check
out the links in the show notes,

if you want to learn more about
Proximity or connect with Jonathan.

Thank so much for coming on.

– Thanks, Adam, thanks for having me.

< Outro >

– This has been Count Me In,

IMA's podcast, providing you with the
latest perspectives of thought leaders,

from the accounting
and finance profession.

If you like what you heard,
and you'd like to be counted in

for more relevant accounting
and finance education,

visit IMA's website at www.imanet.org.

Creators and Guests

Adam Larson
Adam Larson
Producer and co-host of the Count Me In podcast
©Copyright 2019-2024 Institute of Management Accountants. All rights reserved.