Club investment strategy discussion thread

[garindan]

I've been thinking about this for a while but a few members are dragging their heels in voting. I am wondering what we should do about this. Strictly speaking membership of the club entails voting in polls and staying 'active', as well as investing regularly. However, I know this isn't always possible so don't take a massively strong view of upholding these laws to the letter. It does become a problem though when we have a vote and are waiting for two or three members to enable any action.

A couple of things spring to mind, to help us move on and not be constrained. We could:

- class a member as 'inactive' after three polls are missed still, whilst still enabling that member to vote but if they haven't in the last three assume they will not and therefore count the total voters only as those deemed 'active'
- be more forceful with the rules...

Happy to hear thoughts and additional ways we could take things forward.

[Richard Frost]

FWIW, If it was me I would probably go for active enforcement after all people invest their money and should have an active say in how it is managed or leave and invest elsewhere. They know the rules when they join. Once you start making members inactive there is a danger it becomes a small cartel and it could seem as though it was being run by just a few dominant people.

[BeautifulSunshine]

I've been thinking about this for a while but a few members are dragging their heels in voting. I am wondering what we should do about this. Strictly speaking membership of the club entails voting in polls and staying 'active', as well as investing regularly. However, I know this isn't always possible so don't take a massively strong view of upholding these laws to the letter. It does become a problem though when we have a vote and are waiting for two or three members to enable any action.

A couple of things spring to mind, to help us move on and not be constrained. We could:

- class a member as 'inactive' after three polls are missed still, whilst still enabling that member to vote but if they haven't in the last three assume they will not and therefore count the total voters only as those deemed 'active'
- be more forceful with the rules...

Happy to hear thoughts and additional ways we could take things forward.

Me, personally, my humble opinion I would be in favour of classing a member as inactive after three non-votes in a row. Voting rights are not suspended and they can vote should they wish to do so.

This would make the imutual Cashback Investment Club more efficient and amongst other benefits give a speed to react advantage.

[garindan]

FWIW, If it was me I would probably go for active enforcement after all people invest their money and should have an active say in how it is managed or leave and invest elsewhere. They know the rules when they join.

I appreciate that of course. In a court of law this would be the answer as it is what the rules say. However, I think a degree of flexibility, especially so in these strange times, doesn't go amiss. Being too ridgid has its effects too, so fixing one problem can introduce different ones, which we have to be mindful of too.

Once you start making members inactive there is a danger it becomes a small cartel and it could seem as though it was being run by just a few dominant people.

Do you? I didn't think of this result when I was considering options to share. If members knew they would be classed as "inactive" they could easily stop it happening by voting more regularly. It's not like we'll have three polls in a day to catch members out and make a cartel decision in a forth poll. I guess *technically* that could happen but in all reality it is highly unlikely and if it were the case we could also suggest a minimum time period to have elapsed as a secondary element - such as a month, for example. In all fairness if a member can't vote in any of three polls over the course of a month then they are not an active member during that time, let alone over the course of two, three or more months like we have seen in the past. However, it does not mean they don't want to be a member as we have seen.

At the end of the day we need to have votes and each has to conclude within a reasonable timeframe. Most active members, even those who don't post on the forums, vote within a reasonable time. The issue is we have up to three members who don't vote very quickly, if at all, on occasions and we sometimes need one or two of those votes to make a majority conclusion to polls.

I guess the other option is to take a different view and have a maximum time period for votes and base the result purely on the votes that have been cast. We can do this but I always feel much more uncomfortable about that method, as I feel it sits more in the territory you mentioned in your reply. I'm all for members having their say.

As I said - I'm happy to hear more from everyone! Please pipe up with your comments and suggestions.

[garindan]

I thought I should just add - my main goal would be to have something that:

- is not unfair on members not able to or choosing not to vote during a period of time
- doesn't restrict those active members from making decisions for the club

At the moment I am worried the second one is the case, which seems unfair for those regularly taking part in discussions and votes.

[burwin]

I thought I should just add - my main goal would be to have something that:

- is not unfair on members not able to or choosing not to vote during a period of time
- doesn't restrict those active members from making decisions for the club

At the moment I am worried the second one is the case, which seems unfair for those regularly taking part in discussions and votes.

Maybe have the option of "do nothing"/abstain on all votes, but I am flaberghasted to agree with AAAlphaThunder. Would this require a rule change that all members would have to vote on

[BeautifulSunshine]

I thought I should just add - my main goal would be to have something that:

- is not unfair on members not able to or choosing not to vote during a period of time
- doesn't restrict those active members from making decisions for the club

At the moment I am worried the second one is the case, which seems unfair for those regularly taking part in discussions and votes.

Maybe have the option of "do nothing"/abstain on all votes, but I am flaberghasted to agree with AAAlphaThunder. Would this require a rule change that all members would have to vote on

My humble pleasure.

Stranger things have come to pass.

[garindan]

Maybe have the option of "do nothing"/abstain on all votes

Essentially this is what is already happening by those members not voting. I'm still basing the result on the whole membership. So for instance - a clear majority is 8 votes, in a 14 member club.

However, in a 14 member club where 2 or 3 don't vote the majority stays the same but now 8 votes are required from 11/12 voters, which is actually ~66% to ~77% of the active membership. It seems unfair to the active members wanting to move the club along to need to get 8 votes when a majority of 11 is 6 and 12 is 7.

Would this require a rule change that all members would have to vote on

Potentially, but I don't see this as a big upheaval. We might want to make minor changes to a few other parts of the rules at the same time seeing as we wrote them a number of years ago now. It might be sensible to review in light of where things are. I don't mean massive changes though, the sentiment of what the club is about is still true.

It might be that members are happy enough to keep things as they are, in which case that's also fine by me. I have seen some frustration in posts in the past months though, and just feel it is a topic we should raise and discuss

[Beachboy]

Yes I agree, I think if members consistently don't vote they should be classed as an inactive.

[BeautifulSunshine]

I think we should widen the net on the share buy choices and give any member a chance to put forward a prospective share buy.