3 ms·

Now look at it from the other side. You're the 20% owner of that car and you begin to realize the primary owner is neglecting oil changes and abusing the engine

Now look at it from the other side. You're the 20% owner of that car and you begin to realize the primary owner is neglecting oil changes and abusing the engine. Just because you use it on weekends doesn't mean your complaints are unreasonable. Activist investors aren't always wrong. It may have lead to Ballmer's ouster at MS for example. Or earning Dell shareholders more money when Mr. Dell took it private. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2013/09/03/valueact-hedge-funds-huge-microsoft-victory/#8d9fe8318ae4 https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2013/09/03/valueact...

lefstathiou 8y ago
I am a little conflicted on this. This a complex topic so I won’t fully develop the point but I can see a rational basis for CEOs to not treat their companies as a “shared” resource and I would argue that when an investment is made in a company there is an implicit understanding that you are being invited to participate in the economic opportunity but not so much in the control. To work off your analogy, it is akin to “going along for the ride” as opposed to sharing the car. Yes, you own 20% of the car but you agreed that someone else would do the driving and chart the course. If you don’t like the way they are driving, get out and hop into another car. I think it is a bit much to be a minority investor and expect the entire operation to retool when that is a significantly more expensive proposition for the company than it is for you to simply exit the position and buy someone else’s stock. Again, I am not totally confident in this view...