Media Center

Search

4/29/2029

Shareholder Activism in Asia Drives Global Total to Record High

Nikkei Asia (04/29/29) Shikata, Masayuki

Activist shareholders had their busiest year on record in 2024, with the Asia-Pacific region making up a fifth of campaigns worldwide, pushing some companies higher in the stock market and spurring others to consider going private. The worldwide tally of activist campaigns rose by six to 258, up by half from three years earlier, according to data from financial advisory Lazard. Campaigns in the Asia-Pacific tripled over that period to 57, growing about 30% on the year. Japan accounted for more than 60% of the regional total with 37, an all-time high. Activity is picking up this year as well in the run-up to general shareholders meetings in June. South Korea saw 14 campaigns, a jump of 10 from 2023. Critics say South Korean conglomerates are often controlled by minority investors that care too little about other shareholders. Australia and Hong Kong saw increases of one activist campaign each. North America made up half the global total, down from 60% in 2022 and 85% in 2014. Europe had 62 campaigns last year. The upswing in Japan has been fueled by the push for corporate governance reform since 2013 and the Tokyo Stock Exchange's 2023 call for companies to be more mindful of their share prices. The bourse has encouraged corporations to focus less on share buybacks and dividends than on steps for long-term growth, such as capital spending and the sale of unprofitable businesses. Demands for capital allocation to improve return on investment accounted for 51% of activist activity in Japan last year, significantly higher than the five-year average of 32%. U.S.-based Dalton Investments called on Japanese snack maker Ezaki Glico (2206) to amend its articles of incorporation to allow shareholder returns to be decided by investors as well, not just the board of directors. Though the proposal was rejected, it won more than 40% support, and Glico itself put forward a similar measure that was approved at the following general shareholders meeting in March. U.K.-based Palliser Capital took a stake last year in developer Tokyo Tatemono (8804) and argued that more efficient use of its capital, such as selling a cross-held stake in peer Hulic, would boost corporate value. Activist investors are increasingly seeking to lock in unrealized gains from rising land prices, reaping quick profits from property sales that can go toward dividends. Companies in the Tokyo Stock Exchange's broad Topix index had 25.88 trillion yen ($181 billion at current rates) in unrealized gains on property holdings at the end of March 2024, up about 20% from four years earlier. After buying into Mitsui Fudosan (8801) in 2024, U.S.-based Elliott Investment Management this year took a stake in Sumitomo Realty & Development (8830) and is expected to push for the developer to sell real estate holdings. This month, Dalton sent a letter to Fuji Media Holdings (4676), parent of Fuji Television, calling for it to spin off its real estate business and replace its board of directors. Activist campaigns have sparked share price rallies at some companies. Shares of elevator maker Fujitec (6406) were up roughly 80% from March 2023, when it dismissed Takakazu Uchiyama -- a member of the founding family -- as chairman under pressure from Oasis Management. The rise in demands from activists "creates a sense of tension among management, including at companies that don't receive such proposals," said Masatoshi Kikuchi, chief equity strategist at Mizuho Securities. Previously tight cross-shareholdings are being unwound, and reasonable proposals from minority investors are more likely to garner support from foreign shareholders. Some companies are going private to shield themselves from perceived pressure. Investments by buyout funds targeting mature companies in the Asia-Pacific were the highest in three years in 2024, according to Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. Toyota Industries (6201) is considering going this route after facing pressure from investment funds last year to take steps such as dissolving a parent-child listing with a subsidiary and buying back more shares. Toyota Industries holds a 9% stake in Toyota Motor (7203). The automaker "may have proposed having [Toyota Industries] go private as a precautionary measure," said a source at an investment bank.

Read the article

1/16/2027

Dealmakers See More Retail Mergers and IPOs in 2026 After Tariffs Sidelined M&A Last Year

Reuters (01/16/27) Summerville, Abigail

Dealmakers predict an uptick in mergers and IPOs for retailers and consumer goods companies this year after punishing tariffs on imports to the United States had sidelined activity in the industry for the first half of 2025. Several national restaurant and convenience store chains are primed for IPOs, along with organic baby food company Once Upon a Farm, Hellman & Friedman-backed auto repair company Caliber Holdings, and Bob’s Discount Furniture, which is owned by Bain Capital, according to more than two dozen CEOs, M&A advisors and private equity investors who attended the ICR Conference in Orlando, Florida this week. “The number of high-quality companies that are in queue to go public in 2026 is higher than we’ve seen since 2021,” Ben Frost, Goldman Sachs' (GS) global co-head of the consumer retail group said in an interview. “The question is does that mean more will go public? If it does, private investors will see the ability to exit investments again (in a) regular way, which will help (private equity) activity.” Frost was one of the more than 3,000 attendees at the annual gathering, where executives from Walmart (WMT.O), Shake Shack (SHAK.N), and Jersey Mike’s were among presenters while bankers, lawyers and private equity investors spent much of their time brokering deals and landing clients behind the scenes. The upbeat mood was a marked shift from last spring after U.S. President Donald Trump's "Liberation Day" tariff announcements sent markets skidding and killed or stalled several consumer and retail deals. The second half of the year saw a resurgence in activity that brought with it several mega deals, including Kimberly-Clark’s (KMB.O) nearly $50 billion deal to buy Kenvue (KVUE.N), announced in November. "(Companies) are still really focused on growth and synergies. They’re looking at bigger deals than they’ve been willing to do for the last number of years. The back half of last year was the start of that,” Frost said. Kraft Heinz (KHC.O) announced in September it would split into two companies to unwind its 2015 merger, shortly after Keurig Dr Pepper (KDP.O) had agreed to buy JDE Peet’s for $18 billion with plans to split the coffee and non-coffee beverages into separate companies. In apparel, Gildan Activewear (GIL) bought Hanesbrands for $2.2 billion. Investors could also spur more deals and corporate breakups in the sectors, Audra Cohen, co-head of the consumer and retail group at law firm Sullivan & Cromwell, said in an interview at the conference. Corporate agitators have taken recent stakes in Lululemon Athletica (LULU.O) and Target (TGT.N), but aren't yet pushing for M&A. Lululemon hosted a morning yoga class and its management team met with analysts and investors at the conference. Meanwhile, private equity buyers are beating out companies for some deals, Manna Tree Partners co-founder Ellie Rubenstein told Reuters. Her firm sold its cottage cheese brand Good Culture to a larger consumer-focused firm L Catterton just last week. “A lot of these brands have gotten lost (inside big corporations) and the consumers don’t like it. You may see a lot of corporate carveouts this year,” Rubenstein told Reuters in an interview after her keynote address. She interviewed her billionaire father and Carlyle co-founder David Rubenstein, 76, on stage at the conference. The father-daughter pair contrasted their portfolios, pointing to Carlyle’s history of investing in fast food chains like McDonald's (MCD.N) and KFC Korea while Manna Tree saw big returns from investments in healthier food brands like pasture-raised egg producer Vital Farms (VITL.O) and Good Culture.

Read the article

1/23/2026

Commentary: Elliott's Toyota Bet Already Looks Golden

Reuters Breakingviews (01/23/26) Lockett, Hudson

Hudson Lockett, columnist for Reuters Breakingviews, writes that Elliott has picked the right target, the right opponent, the right argument and the right time with its challenge to insiders’ $36 billion bid to take Toyota Industries (6201.T). Having helped successfully press Akio Toyoda and other Toyota group insiders for a higher offer, Elliott Investment Management led by Paul Singer has now upped its stake in Industries to about 6.7%, according to a disclosure on Thursday. The move underscores that there is more to gain from this campaign in Japan than just return on investment. The shareholding of nearly 7% recalls a similar stake taken by Elliott in its bid to block an intergroup merger at Samsung in 2015. While shareholders narrowly waved through that deal after the South Korean group sent them fruit baskets, the environment for activism today in Japan appears more evolved. With its latest bet, Elliott is already winning: the take-private consortium, which includes Toyota Motor (7203.T) and unlisted real-estate firm Toyota Fudosan, raised their proposal by 15% last week to 18,800 yen per share. Back-of-the-envelope maths suggest Elliott paid around 16,650 yen per share across September and October for its original stake of 5.01%. That shakes out to a cost of purchase of around 255 billion yen, about $1.6 billion at current exchange rates. Even at the revised offer price, that would amount to a return of about 33 billion yen on the activist's initial stake. But as of Friday afternoon in Tokyo, shares in Industries were trading at 19,600 yen, 4% above the tender offer price. That represents a potential barrier to insiders’ deal: if minority shareholders want to cash out their shareholdings, they would do much better to sell into the market if they can find buyers than take the tender offer. A Breakingviews estimate suggests the consortium's higher offer still undervalues its target by 39%. Elliott can’t take sole credit for share price resistance, nor for the revised tender offer. An open letter in August from the Asian Corporate Governance Association flagged obvious deficiencies in the deal. The U.S. fund, though, is due recognition for doubling down on its bet. Even if the tender is successful at the current offer price, a larger stake could play to Elliott's advantage in court by bolstering its claim to speak on behalf of minority shareholders. Either way, the fund will have still broken new ground as an activist in Japan by taking on an iconic conglomerate and proven itself a trustworthy partner to other minority shareholders—as well as banking a return. That makes a bigger stake well worth the cost.

Read the article

1/23/2026

Insight: Shareholder Proposal Reform Must Center on Facts, Not Philosophy

Bloomberg Law (01/23/26) Cunningham, Lawrence

Lawrence A. Cunningham, presiding director of the John L. Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, writes that nearly all constituencies in corporate governance—shareholders, directors, and professionals—agree on one thing: The Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) handling of shareholder proposals isn’t working. A recent large-scale survey reveals broad dissatisfaction with the agency’s administration of Rule 14a-8, citing unpredictability, opacity, and inconsistent application of standards. That consensus spans groups that otherwise disagree over the legitimacy of certain proposals. The problem isn’t just philosophical polarization—it’s institutional design. This matters because the SEC is signaling a willingness to reconsider its role under Rule 14a-8. At stake is a fundamental question: Should a federal securities regulator continue to referee disputes that often turn on corporate governance, or should greater responsibility rest with the states that traditionally oversee internal corporate affairs? The debate has gained new salience, yet much of the public discussion remains abstract, dominated by anecdote and ideology. The survey data offer a more grounded starting point. First, dissatisfaction with the current process is nearly universal. Even those who favor shareholder activism agree that the SEC’s no-action system has for many years been unpredictable and costly. That convergence suggests reform should focus less on proposals’ merits and more on how the process works. Second, the data distinguish areas of consensus from genuine dispute. Traditional governance proposals—on voting rights, board accountability, or takeover defenses—are widely viewed as legitimate. By contrast, environmental and social proposals provoke sharp disagreement—not only about outcomes but also about the proper scope of shareholder involvement. Yet even here, respondents often agree on underlying principles: materiality, feasibility, and a connection to firm-specific business concerns. Third, cost asymmetry looms large. Submitting a proposal is cheap; responding can be expensive. That imbalance shapes perceptions of fairness and effectiveness, especially among directors. Whether seen as a necessary feature of shareholder voice or a distortion of incentives, it underscores that Rule 14a-8 now carries consequences well beyond disclosure. Finally, the system is often misunderstood as shareholder democracy. In reality, most proposals never reach a vote—they’re withdrawn or blocked through no-action relief. Of those that do reach the ballot, most fail. That’s not a flaw; it reflects corporate law’s design. Corporations aren’t democracies but hierarchical institutions where boards exercise plenary authority and shareholders have limited, episodic rights. Federal proxy rules were meant to complement that structure, not replace it. The survey’s findings give concrete details on what might otherwise sound like an abstract federalism debate. Shareholder proposals increasingly require judgments about authority, fiduciary duty, and the boundaries between shareholder input and board discretion—questions traditionally addressed under state law. Yet the SEC remains responsible for administering a process embedded in federal proxy rules, using tools developed for a disclosure-oriented mandate. The survey also points to a third option: private ordering. Many respondents favor letting companies set their own rules for shareholder proposals in bylaws and charters, subject to disclosure and fiduciary duties—flexibility long embraced in Delaware law. The survey doesn’t dictate a single solution. Reasonable observers differ on whether clearer federal standards, greater deference to state law, or some hybrid approach would best improve predictability and legitimacy. But the data make clear that the status quo satisfies few participants and that reform discussions should begin with how the system actually operates rather than caricatures of activism or reflexive defenses of existing arrangements. If the SEC proceeds with reconsidering its role, it can reframe the debate in practical terms. The question isn’t whether shareholder proposals should exist, but how they should function—and which institutions should make the judgments the system now requires. Any durable reform, federal or state, must reckon with those realities. The goal should be a process that is predictable, transparent, and aligned with corporate law’s allocation of authority—while enabling private ordering for companies that seek tailored solutions. Getting this right matters. Shareholder proposals shape corporate priorities, imposing real costs while also offering potential benefits—tradeoffs that remain sharply contested. Reform should start with facts, not philosophies.

Read the article

1/22/2026

This Time, Lululemon’s Founder Blames Its Board for See-Through Pants

Wall Street Journal (01/22/26) Kapner, Suzanne

When Lululemon (LULU ) Athletica had a sheerness problem years ago, founder Chip Wilson blamed its customers. Now, in yet another see-through dust-up, he’s blaming the company’s board. “This is a new low for Lululemon,” Wilson wrote in a LinkedIn post days after customer complaints pushed the athleisure company to pause online sales of a new line of active wear. Some said the material of the Get Low leggings was too sheer to do much bending or squatting. “Despite any finger pointing internally following this mishap, this is not the fault of any hard-working employees,” he continued. “This is the fault of the Board.” A Lululemon spokesman declined to comment on Wilson’s post. It isn’t the first time the company famous for its yoga wear has run into issues with the sheerness of its materials. Back in 2013, when Wilson was still on Lululemon’s board, he suggested in a TV interview that sheerness and pilling problems with yet another style of Lululemon pants were the fault of its customers. “Quite frankly some women’s bodies just actually don’t work for it,” he said. Later that year, he apologized and stepped down as chairman. He left the board entirely in 2015. This week’s tongue-lashing is the latest salvo in Wilson’s campaign to remake Lululemon’s board. Wilson, who is the company’s largest individual shareholder, has been critical of Lululemon’s management and board for months, blaming them for the retailer’s having lost its “cool” and “its way as a leader in technical apparel.” In December, he launched a proxy fight to replace several board members while the company looks for a new chief executive. Its now-former CEO Calvin McDonald stepped down from the role earlier that month. Lululemon paused online sales of the Get Low line of activewear just days after launching the collection. It pulled the products from its website “to review early guest feedback and insights,” it said in a statement, though they were still available in North American stores. It restored the Get Low collection to its website Wednesday evening after adding more guidance on sizing and how to use the garments. A stack of Lululemon Get Low leggings in various colors and patterns. “We take our guests’ feedback seriously and value their input in shaping the products and experiences we create,” the company said. In 2024, Lululemon stopped selling its Breezethrough leggings after customers complained that the fabric was too thin and the V-shaped seam lines were asymmetrical and unflattering. Lululemon got its start as an innovator in athletic apparel, designing leggings that were so flattering and comfortable that women wore them to the gym and just about everywhere else. It helped create the athletic apparel category and dominated it for years. But more recently, it has stumbled with quality issues and a lack of new styles while rivals are gaining steam. “For years, Lululemon’s results (particularly in North America) have shown how the Company has struggled to deliver products that are compelling and beloved; now it is unable to simply deliver products that work,” Wilson wrote in his post. “It is clear that persistent failures like this are born out of this Board’s lack of experience in creative businesses, disinterest in product development and quality, and focus on short-term, self-interested priorities,” he continued. One solution, according to Wilson’s post, would be for the board to have a Brand Product Committee with oversight of the product pipeline and quality testing. Wilson doesn’t want a board seat for himself. But as part of his proxy fight, he nominated three directors to Lululemon’s board. He also wants David Mussafer, who is a managing partner of private-equity firm Advent International, to relinquish his board seat. Mussafer joined the board in 2005, when Wilson sold 48% of Lululemon to Advent and stepped down as CEO. This month, Lululemon said its sales and earnings for the year-end quarter would likely come in at the high-end of its previously guided range. The move comes after several challenging quarters in which North American sales fell. Lululemon is also being engaged by Elliott Management, which took a roughly $1 billion stake in the firm in December and has been working with former Ralph Lauren (NYSE: RL) executive Jane Nielsen as a potential candidate for its CEO role.

Read the article

1/20/2026

Activist Investors Do Not Plan to Play Nice This Year as They Eye More Corporate Breakups

Reuters (01/20/26) Herbst-Bayliss, Svea

Corporate agitators who patiently prodded companies for changes last year will not be as nice in 2026. Activist investors are planning to push more companies to sell or break up this year as deal activity heats up and opens a faster – and more profitable – way to realize gains, according to a dozen bankers, lawyers, and investors who spoke to Reuters. The trend became visible last year after more than half, or 54%, of all activist campaigns launched in the second half of 2025 pressured companies to sell. That is up from the first half when only 35% of campaigns included demands for M&A, data from Barclays (BCS) shows. "M&A is a big theme these days and we are seeing activist investors trying to catalyze more mergers and acquisitions," said Amy Lissauer, global head of activism and raid defense at Bank of America (BAC.N). Company sales and even speculation about possible M&A helped Anson Funds, which often takes positions in companies and then pushes for changes including mergers or acquisitions, deliver a 21.2% gain for its investors last year, one investor said, outperforming both the broader S&P 500 Index and many of its activist peers. Lionsgate Studios (LION.N), where Anson has been pushing for a sale since 2024, rallied as Warner Bros Discovery (WBD.O), a separate film and TV studio, began exploring a sale of all or some of its holdings late last year. Canadian rental housing owner InterRent REIT (IIPZF), which Anson also urged to sell itself, was acquired by a consortium of CLV Group and Singapore's sovereign wealth fund GIC in early 2025. Then late in the year, news that Abu Dhabi's Mubadala Capital was considering buying Clear Channel Outdoor (CCO.N) helped contribute more gains after Anson along with other activists had long pushed for a sale. Though a deal was not announced, Clear Channel's shares shot up by about 20% the next day and are currently up by about 51% since the Mubadala news emerged. On average, activist investors returned 13.4% last year, Hedge Fund Research data shows, making activism one of the most profitable hedge fund strategies tracked by the firm. The S&P 500 gained 17.9%, including dividends, last year. While a handful of activists could brag about their double-digit returns, others had middling or even disappointing years, investors said, adding that these portfolio managers now face fresh pressure to deliver better performance to satisfy impatient investors. The booming M&A market, which just clocked its second-best year on record with $5.1 trillion in deals signed in 2025 thanks largely to megadeals, is expected to trickle down to smaller companies. Activists perceive an opportunity to make more money by pushing for sales of mid-cap and small-cap companies and as private equity firms look to take more publicly traded ones private, said Jim Rossman, global head of shareholder advisory at Barclays. "The activist's tool kit is now wide open for 2026," he said. Experienced activists as well as newcomers are ready to push for even more action, certain this is the fastest and most lucrative path to eye-popping returns, bankers, lawyers, and investors added. Earlier this month, software maker BlackLine's (BL.O) stock price jumped 2.4% after Reuters reported that Engaged Capital is planning to try to replace board directors amid criticism from the firm that the company has not yet reached a deal to sell itself even after interest from a large rival. Starboard Value late last year pushed technology company Clearwater Analytics (CWAN.N) to sell itself when its shares were trading around $21.76 in early December. Almost two weeks later, private equity firms led by Permira and Warburg Pincus announced plans to buy it for $8.4 billion. Its shares are currently trading above $24. Kenvue (KVUE.N) investors, including Toms Capital and Third Point, long urged the Tylenol and Band-Aid maker to sell itself before a deal was made with Kleenex maker Kimberly-Clark (KMB.O) in early November. At least one activist planned to launch a proxy fight at Kenvue if there was no movement on a sale, a person familiar with the matter said. Kenvue's stock price has jumped some 20% since news of the planned sale. The hedge funds either declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment on their strategies and performance. "Plan A is always for M&A because breaking up a company, or better yet selling it, has the potential to bring in a lot more money than anything else the activist may have planned," said Kai Liekefett, co-chair of law firm Sidley Austin's shareholder activism and corporate defense practice. Looking ahead, bankers and lawyers said they are expecting more, noting this means more activism campaigns generally as well as the push for companies to pursue deals within those campaigns. "Improving M&A conditions (are) creating viable opportunities for transactional-related activism," Lazard bankers wrote in their 2025 report about key trends to watch.

Read the article

1/20/2026

Delaware Supreme Court Sides with Moelis over Stockholder Agreement

Reuters (01/20/26) Hals, Tom

A Moelis & Co (MC.N) shareholder cannot challenge an agreement with Ken Moelis that gives the founder broad control over the investment bank's board, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday. The ruling is the second in recent weeks by the court that reversed a landmark decision that had sparked outrage among tech founders and other powerful investors, who worried the state's judges were undermining Delaware's business-friendly reputation. Last month, the court revived Elon Musk's record-breaking compensation from Tesla (TSLA), worth more than $100 billion. Tuesday's ruling reverses a 2024 decision by Travis Laster of the Court of Chancery that cast doubt on thousands of stockholder agreements that allow powerful investors like private equity firms and founders to control various aspects of board decisions. Laster said the Moelis stockholder agreement conflicted with Delaware corporate law, which empowers directors to manage the business to benefit all investors. The Delaware Supreme Court said Laster erred when he determined that the West Palm Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund was not required to sue within three years of the 2014 Moelis agreement because the arrangement amounted to an ongoing violation of Delaware law. The fund had sued in 2023. The high court said it did not need to address the validity of the Moelis agreement. In the Musk ruling, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a similar narrow ruling that only addressed the remedy. Within months of Laster's ruling, Delaware lawmakers rushed to amend the state's widely used corporate law to protect stockholder agreements. As a result, the ruling by the Delaware Supreme Court will have limited practical impact on the state's corporate law.

Read the article

1/15/2026

Will Trian's Takeover Work? We Ask Founding Janus Henderson CEO

Citywire (01/15/26) Robins, William

Janus Henderson (JHG) is returning from public listing to become a privately-owned asset manager. Is it a good idea? Will it work? Will we see more of this thing? The answers, according to one of the men who helped create that business are: yes; it will have to; and probably not as much as there should be. In case you missed it, Janus Henderson has been bought by a consortium led by long term investor Nelson Peltz, for $7.2 billion. Peltz’s own business, Trian, had already built a sizable stake in the asset manager. Indeed, in 2022 he took a seat on its board in an activist move that resulted in the appointment of current CEO, Ali Dibadj with a cost-cutting and deal-making agenda. In 2024, the firm posted its first positive net flows since 2015, to the tune of $2.4 billion. Why, then, has Trian put together this deal now? In search of answers Citywire put a call into Sydney, Australia, where former Henderson Group CEO and then Janus Henderson co-CEO, Andrew Formica, now resides as executive chairman of Magellan Financial Group. Former fund manager Formica became CEO of Henderson in 2008, while still in his 30s, and after acquiring Gartmore and New Star, led the merger with Janus in 2016. He became co-CEO with Janus’ Dick Weil but departed in 2018. The business, he said, now needs ‘transformational change,’ the kind the market will not support. A lot of this is about technology. Janus Henderson, like many other asset managers, needs to catch up to where other financial firms have got to already, says Formica, and it specifically needs to start working hard on developing its AI capabilities. And all that will take time and serious investment. ‘Our industry has been too stuck in the past, too much stuck in what’s always worked. We need to adapt and we need to change,’ Formica told Citywire. ‘Look at the winners in the wealth space or platforms, these are people who’ve made huge investments in their business and have changed the way they engage with their clients, and reaped the rewards for that. Asset managers have struggled and you can see that across the piece.’ While some asset managers are enjoying a recent pick up in share prices, it is fair to say the last few years have not been kind. Margins have fallen, with unabated cost pressure among the reasons for that, while private asset groups opened up a battle for wealth clients on the opposite flank. Some merger and acquisition deals have not succeeded in creating value either. Looking back at his own Janus and Henderson merger experience, Formica confides that the ‘challenge of bringing both those businesses together was hard’ and would have preferred to have stayed on a longer than he did, but that the ‘rationale of the deal and the outcome for clients’ has stood the test of time, 10 years on. ‘It’s fair to say these aren’t the heydays,’ Formica continues. ‘The heyday was 15 years ago. ‘The world’s changed but asset management businesses haven’t changed sufficiently and fast enough to keep up with it. And that I think is what is driving this.’ Janus is ‘a successful firm’ which has got itself ‘steered in the right direction’ under Dibadj. ‘But if you want to accelerate that growth, you need to make bigger investments. But the market doesn’t like investments without significant returns in the very short term, so they downgrade that. That is why Peltz is saying: I’m prepared to give you the support and the time to make those investments.’ What then are the ‘transformational’ changes required? ‘If I’m honest, it’s across the whole spectrum,’ says Formica. Though, it seems to boil down to the implementation of AI. Starting with the investment side, the ‘speed of analyzing information’ can be greatly improved. Formica likens it to the way access to data was ‘revolutionized’ by Bloomberg in the 1980s. ‘AI is just going to be a quantum better than that,’ says Formica. ‘The investment process can be significantly enhanced and improved and sped up.' Next is distribution. Here, the game everyone wants to win is customization. Asset managers must standardize their own processes to keep costs down, ‘but we want to look as customized as possible to our clients.’ AI has the ‘unique ability to take a complete data set and make it look very much individual’ but the only way it can do this is if behind the scenes an asset manager has a ‘very scalable data set.’ In short, AI will need to be applied across the board. In operations, in compliance, client engagement and investment.

Read the article

1/14/2026

How Investors Plan to Take on Big Oil at the 2026 AGM Season

CNBC (01/14/26) Meredith, Sam

Dutch group Follow This on Wednesday launched a newly revised strategy to take on Big Oil at the upcoming proxy season, seeking to increase shareholder pressure on the financial sustainability of fossil fuel business models. The prominent climate activist group, which paused filing shareholder resolutions last year due to a lack of investor appetite, said it will change tack to focus on the financial risks associated with declining oil and gas demand — rather than requesting emission reduction targets. The pivot comes as oil and gas majors double down on hydrocarbons and scale back green energy investments as part of a push to boost profit. Alongside 23 institutional investors with 1.5 trillion euros ($1.75 trillion) in assets under management, Follow This said it has co-filed new shareholder resolutions for the Annual General Meetings (AGMs) of Britain’s Shell (SHEL) and BP (BP). The resolutions request that both London-listed companies disclose strategies for creating shareholder value under scenarios of falling oil and gas demand, including under the International Energy Agency’s Stated Policies Scenario (STEPS) and Announced Pledges Scenario (APS). “Every investor in his right mind knows — even BlackRock (BLK) knows — that climate change is threatening their entire portfolio. They all know it, but they don’t dare to take action,” Mark van Baal, founder of Follow This, told CNBC by video call. “We concluded that OK, if we want to increase the pressure on the oil companies to change, we need to raise the votes, and we need to raise an extra talking point into the discussion,” Van Baal said. “They are only going to change if their business model is not profitable anymore, if their license to operate is gone, or if their shareholders steer them in a different direction. We have always been working on the shareholder lever.” In response, a spokesperson for Shell said: “As with any resolution that meets the procedural requirements, the Board will consider it and respond with a recommendation to shareholders in our Notice of Meeting for the AGM.” Follow This, which has previously achieved majority investor backing, has seen support plateau at around 20% in recent years, partly due to concerns about legal risks, particularly in the United States. It says a change of approach is necessary, given that many investors remain wary about supporting climate-labeled resolutions. Financial risk, by contrast, is an issue boards cannot dismiss as non-financial, Follow This said. “Everybody is hesitant. Politicians are hesitating because we have a climate denying president in the United States, while in Europe, right-wing politicians are just repeating that message, and the politicians in the middle don’t dare to talk about climate much anymore,” Van Baal said. Climate scientists have repeatedly warned that a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use will be necessary to curb global heating, with the burning of coal, oil, and gas identified as the chief driver of the climate crisis. For Shell, which plans to become a net zero company by 2050, Follow This said the shareholder resolution had been co-filed by current and former Shell employees for the first time. It said the resolution includes five current and 19 former Shell employees. “The board should be transparent about how Shell plans to create value as fossil fuel demand declines,” said Arjan Keizer, one of the former Shell employees supporting the resolution. He held various roles at the company, including working as the chief strategy officer of Shell’s unit formerly called NewMotion. Shell and BP have both watered down their plans to invest in green energy projects in recent years, favoring a renewed focus on their core hydrocarbon businesses. Speaking to CNBC last year, Shell CEO Wael Sawan said gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) will be critical to the energy transition, adding that the biggest contribution the firm can make is through its LNG sales. The firm expects global demand for LNG to rise by around 60% by 2040, largely driven by economic growth in Asia and emissions reductions in heavy industry, among other factors. BP, which became the first oil major to announce a commitment to become a net zero company by 2050, recently announced the appointment of its fourth CEO in six years. The company said Meg O’Neill, who currently serves as CEO of Australian gas giant Woodside Energy (WDS), will assume the role as BP chief executive from April 1, taking the reins from Murray Auchincloss. “Shareholders are rightly requesting vital transparency from BP on its long-term business strategy,” said Sara E. Murphy, director of system-level investing at the Sierra Club Foundation, one of the co-filing investors. “Multiple trusted analysts, including the IEA’s STEPS and APS scenarios, project a decline in oil and gas demand. BP’s current strategy, which assumes growth, thus warrants serious investor concern,” they added. BP announced a green strategy U-turn in February last year, pledging to slash renewable spending and ramp up annual expenditure on its core business of oil and gas. The move, which was broadly welcomed by energy analysts, included plans to reach $20 billion in divestments by the end of 2027. As part of this push, BP said last month that it had agreed to sell a 65% shareholding in lubricants business Castrol to Stonepeak for $6 billion.

Read the article
Next