A lot of banks advise boards on defending against activist investors. I'm curious, if the goal of an activist investor is to unlock shareholder value, why do companies pay advisors to fight them? By paying fees to do so, isn't this essentially acting against the best interests of the shareholders?
Trending Content - Investment Banking Forum
| +299 | I Snuck Into UBS Office And Took A Shit On The Floor | 28 | 11h |
| +287 | TPH V.S. Mizuho [HOU] | 36 | 1d |
| +244 | Why leave restructuring for M&A? | 30 | 11h |
| +229 | Best Power/Renewables/Energy Teams? | 38 | 9h |
| +223 | Houston 2026 Oil & Gas Investment Banking Rankings | 53 | 17m |
| +187 | Centerview HC group falling off? | 30 | 10h |
| +183 | Actual EB List | 27 | 20h |
| +177 | Predicted 1Q 2027 Story - UBS IB blames Outlook Outage for Down Quarter | 35 | 1h |
| +173 | Incoming TPH Analysts Larping as PWP on LinkedIn | 24 | 2h |
| +167 | How does getting staffed on an "account" work? | 40 | 1h |
Career Resources
Common misconception that activists are always acting on behalf of all shareholders. They are acting on behalf of only themselves and to make a return. I've seen situations where activists were pushing for action that would be detrimental to shareholders in the mid/long-term. I've seen situations where activists pushed for a different (better) return profile for themselves vs common shareholders. I've seen situations where it was probably a good thing that an activist jumped in. Ultimately, activists are generally opportunistic investors that seek to generate returns sooner rather than later where they can make an argument for underperformance. This underperformance can be temporary, situational or structural. Activists are most helpful when there are structural issues causing underperformance and there is an ineffective governance structure to enact change. If the rest of the shareholder base happens to benefit from the activist's actions as well, great (also makes it easier to fight those proxy battles). If long-term shareholders lose but the activist gains, they don't care either.
Necessitatibus deserunt debitis itaque suscipit architecto suscipit non. Quis velit delectus minus minus rerum et. Quia deserunt consectetur dolorem est natus voluptatem asperiores.
Dolor culpa totam qui. Dolorem velit tempora et sunt laboriosam recusandae explicabo. Soluta unde autem incidunt quia suscipit ratione. Necessitatibus voluptates occaecati sequi expedita ipsum.
Qui assumenda veritatis reiciendis quia non. Enim modi quia perferendis accusamus id aperiam voluptatem. Cum quo unde et voluptatem et odit. Beatae iusto quia ad. Eveniet eligendi dolorem totam ut. Maiores dolor enim asperiores.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Asperiores amet hic earum ut est hic. Quo reprehenderit unde quas et et.
Sunt id vitae aut voluptatem est. Quibusdam repellendus eum fuga vel. Earum ut repellat aut cupiditate ipsam ipsum asperiores.
Quae quaerat in voluptatem delectus et optio accusantium. Voluptas ut dolores quod a vel. Officia minima adipisci aut quia et quibusdam. Sint eum et voluptates laborum autem.
Reprehenderit vero doloremque fuga aut tempore labore. Et magni consequuntur repellat ut sapiente placeat. Reprehenderit adipisci sit iusto qui enim quisquam. Nisi at dolorem id quia suscipit. Earum beatae vitae et laboriosam.
Veritatis ut ea neque earum id. Incidunt facilis sunt eligendi.
Necessitatibus saepe enim cumque iure voluptatem. Itaque quae omnis ea laudantium. Sit ut enim sed fugit aliquid sequi. Cumque animi velit voluptate. Tenetur veritatis nulla dolorem in minima adipisci eos. Et beatae maxime quisquam dolores assumenda.