Which of these is NOT a way for investors to make their voting activity more effective and influential?

Voting in corporate governance represents a critical opportunity for investors to influence company behavior and strategic direction. The ways identified to enhance the effectiveness of voting activity focus on proactive engagement and clear communication between investors and companies.

Holding an active dialogue with the company ahead of decisions provides investors with a platform to express their views and influence outcomes before the formal voting takes place. This open communication can lead to better understanding and alignment between the company's management and investors.

Attending the Annual General Meeting (AGM) is another strong tactic. By being present and potentially making a spoken intervention, investors can directly articulate their concerns or support for certain resolutions, thereby increasing their visibility and impact on the decision-making process.

Writing to highlight the reasons for voting decisions after the fact also serves a crucial purpose. It provides important feedback to the company, holding management accountable and reinforcing the rationale behind the investors' votes. This continued engagement is vital for fostering ongoing dialogue.

In contrast, voting only on resolutions where investors have a clear opinion may limit their influence. By abstaining from voting on other important resolutions, investors miss out on the chance to engage on potentially critical issues. This passive approach can undermine their effectiveness as stakeholders, as they might forfeit the opportunity to impact decisions that could align with their values