Activist Investors - Psycho Terrorists?

Every investor should take an active interest in the companies they hold a stake in. New ideas and suggestions should be addressed to management and all co-investors in an open fashion. Discreet talks between favoured investors and management are close to insider dealing and should be restricted, even prohibited. If fund managers that enjoy numerous legal and tax privileges want to get involved in management of the companies they invest in they should re-register as ordinary companies.
Thyssen-Krupp Chair: Activists close to Psycho Terrorists

Procter & Gamble: Who should sit on a Board?

Should a so-called 'Activist' investor with less than 1% of the outstanding shares be allowed to get a seat on the board? On what principles should boards be nominated?

Join the debate or decisions will be made for you while you have to pay for these expensive proxy 'battles'.

CNBC

Defense against Activists wastes Investor's Money

Why can a company like P&G not just say NO to an 'Activist' speculator who pesters it? If Peltz wants he should rustle up enough votes to hold a shareholder meeting. Apart from that there should be protection against manipulating the shareholder register by stake building, only allow longterm holders to vote. Now THAT would be proper defense against unwanted approaches, it it would cost NOTHING, to the detriment of corporate finance 'advisers'.
(21-Sept-2017)
https://www.valuewalk.com/2017/09/pg-spending-100-million-fend-off-nelson-peltz/

Fee pressure - who can afford good Corp Governance?

As an afterthought to the previous entry just one question: if more and more assets move to passive instruments and fee income of the investment fiduciaries is under sustained pressure, who can then afford to pay for detailed corporate governance? The work cannot just be done by some second-rate professionals as the task requires detailed analysis, maybe even more so than the task of buying or selling shares at the right time. And letting a few proxy agencies take over the whole process it not that cheap either when you consider wafer-thin fees on passive products. This is apart from the question of who monitors the proxy agencies and competitive aspects if two or three providers dominate the field. Activist Investors to the rescue? But they want more than a pound of flesh! And are their motives aligned with the interests of the ordinary saver and investor?
(16-Aug-2017)

Who runs the Show? Are Activist Investors given too much leeway?

News that 'Activist' investor Elliott Management and Arconic settle their longstanding battle should be seen for what it is: a black eye for corporate government. The number of board members handed to Elliott are out of proportion to the stake the firm has in Arconic. Giving investors board seats also creates conflicts of interest - hopes that 'Chinese Walls' work properly may be optimistic. Why create these conflicts when an arms-length relationship would do the job? And what role did the shareholders as a whole play in this 'agreement'? Who consulted them? And can the activist firm be involved in buying and selling the target's shares while negotiations are taking place?
Movers: Arconic and Elliott Settle

Kleinfeld Letter to Paul Singer - where is the hidden Agenda?

That there will be little - if any - love lost between Arconic's Kleinfeld and Paul Singer should not surprise anyone. But when I read the controversial letter I was left with just one question: What was Singer up to in Berlin during the Soccer World Championship 2006? Apart from that I think the 'Activist' style of Asset Management needs more scrutiny from regulators as well as the Corporate Governance Crowd. Communication between Asset Managers and Companies should be on a fully transparent basis and any motions to change management should be addressed to the totality of shareholders who can then vote on proposals at the Annual Meeting (or extraordinary Meeting if required). Backseat driving should be discouraged as much as possible. And with respect to this letter: can ANYONE find the hidden agenda that so upset Singer and the Arconic Board? I would like to see your comments!

Activists go to Washington

One can only wait to see what the 'luminaries' of the Activist investment scene want to achieve by setting up a lobbying group.
Have they not already influence way beyond their actual investment stake in the companies they try to influence - for better or worse, depending on your point of view.
The purpose of their grouping can only be to have a freer hand when getting involved in 'activist' investments, stifling criticism from the media, politics and - most importantly - other shareholders (we may call them the silent majority).
Their aims may often make sense, managements may need a nudge in the right direction. But basically that would just mean to give advice, and free advice. Management should then react in a fashion that it considers appropriate. If the outcome is contrary to the interests of ALL shareholders there is the Shareholders meeting that can decide to change management if that is considered appropriate.
But efforts to get paid off (blackmail in effect) or being able to place a disproportionate number of directors on the board are nefarious practises that have been going on for much too long. If the efforts of the Lobby group are directed towards extending these and similar practises the real aims would be exposed as just another scheme to make a buck at the expense of shareholders and the welfare of companies and their stakeholders.
(19 May 2016)