You're arguing two different things. First: if changes to a company enhance its long term value, it may benefit short term shareholders, but logically, long-ter

You're arguing two different things. First: if changes to a company enhance its long term value, it may benefit short term shareholders, but logically, long-term holders will benefit more. In fact, if short term holders were to benefit more then it makes no sense to be a long term holder, and if long term holders stand to benefit more, then why would you be selling all, or practically all, of your position? If someone buys a company's stock, insists on major structural changes, and then sells the stock, how can you argue that this investor is acting in the long term investor's interest without either being a financial incompetent or altruistic to the point of sainthood? For the risk tolerance point, you're assuming that everyone who opposes Icahn is overinvested in eBay, which doesn't follow at all. It may be that you would rather see eBay invest in itself or return excess cash in the form of a steady dividend. Or you may flat out disagree with the notion of spinning off Paypal. Making a stupid decision isn't "risk tolerance", it's "hey man, hold my beer and watch this".