The new “Company Law” lowered the shareholding threshold for temporary shareholders' proposals to 1%. It has been more than a year since then, yet the reduction in the threshold has not clearly stimulated the enthusiasm of small and medium-sized shareholders to make proposals. There are few proposals from small and medium shareholders, which does not mean that investors are undemanding. At multiple shareholders' meetings of listed companies in the past two years, plans such as related transactions, equity incentives, and revised rules were strongly opposed by small and medium shareholders. Some of the bills were directly rejected after the majority shareholders avoided voting. This shows that small and medium-sized investors have a clear judgment on the company's operations and distribution of benefits, and their willingness to participate in corporate governance continues to rise. However, the reality is that the reasonable demands of many small and medium shareholders are difficult to turn into formal proposals, and there is still a gap between system supply and actual exercise of power. The high cost of exercising rights is the first realistic threshold. Shareholders are required to hold 1% of the shares individually or in total to exercise temporary proposals. For decentralized shareholders, if they want to jointly gather this shareholding ratio, they will face problems such as isolation of shareholder information and lack of communication channels, and the time and communication costs of spontaneous alliances are high. Even if the shareholding conditions are met, the relevant proposals need to have clear issues and resolution matters that can be put to a vote. Most ordinary investors are unfamiliar with the relevant rules and lack the support of professional intermediaries. Many proposals are directly blocked by the board of directors from shareholders' meetings due to flaws in format, text, etc.

The new “Company Law” lowered the shareholding threshold for temporary shareholders' proposals to 1%. It has been more than a year since then, yet the reduction in the threshold has not clearly stimulated the enthusiasm of small and medium-sized shareholders to make proposals. There are few proposals from small and medium shareholders, which does not mean that investors are undemanding. At multiple shareholders' meetings of listed companies in the past two years, plans such as related transactions, equity incentives, and revised rules were strongly opposed by small and medium shareholders. Some of the bills were directly rejected after the majority shareholders avoided voting. This shows that small and medium-sized investors have a clear judgment on the company's operations and distribution of benefits, and their willingness to participate in corporate governance continues to rise. However, the reality is that the reasonable demands of many small and medium shareholders are difficult to turn into formal proposals, and there is still a gap between system supply and actual exercise of power. The high cost of exercising rights is the first realistic threshold. Shareholders are required to hold 1% of the shares individually or in total to exercise temporary proposals. For decentralized shareholders, if they want to jointly gather this shareholding ratio, they will face problems such as isolation of shareholder information and lack of communication channels, and the time and communication costs of spontaneous alliances are high. Even if the shareholding conditions are met, the relevant proposals need to have clear issues and resolution matters that can be put to a vote. Most ordinary investors are unfamiliar with the relevant rules and lack the support of professional intermediaries. Many proposals are directly blocked by the board of directors from shareholders' meetings due to flaws in format, text, etc.