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

5/5/2026

Can the Meme Stock King Pull off Audacious eBay Swoop?

Financial Times (05/05/26) Fontanella-Khan, James

Ryan Cohen, the unpredictable king of the meme-stock era, has set his sights on his next project: a huge leveraged buyout. The GameStop (NYSE: GME) chief executive is seeking to engineer a deal in which the shrinking video-game retailer buys online marketplace eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY) for $56 billion in cash and stock. For Cohen, who made billions during the meme stock boom, pulling off the deal looks a tough ask. GameStop’s $11 billion market capitalisation is a fraction of eBay’s and the financing required to get the deal done is far from secure. The gulf between the two companies is not just one of valuation, but also of stability and predictability. But while the unconventional deal may appear a long shot, people who have dealt with GameStop’s boss say it is a “quintessential” Cohen move. “Ryan is a bit of a cowboy, a guy that is hard to deal with, but he’s been pretty successful,” said a person who has done business with him. Cohen made his fortune through the $3.4 billion sale of online pet food retailer Chewy (NYSE: CHWY) — which he co-founded in 2011 — to pet food chain PetSmart in 2017. He bought a 10% stake in GameStop and joined the retailer’s board in 2021. Within six months he was appointed chair with a brief to make a struggling bricks-and-mortar retailer fit for the digital age. Cohen went on to gain notoriety by riding the pandemic-era meme stock wave, in which armies of retail traders sent stocks soaring and plunging on the basis of vibes rather than fundamentals. He recast GameStop as an ecommerce turnaround, hiring senior executives from Amazon to lend credibility and exploiting its surging share price to issue billions in new equity, capitalizing on the exuberance of bedroom traders to strengthen its balance sheet. Cohen is seeking to buy eBay, in which GameStop has already built a 5% stake, and position it as a credible rival to Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN). While the board of eBay has yet to officially comment, people close to the company have expressed serious concerns around the sources of funding as well as the industrial logic of combining with a much smaller company. Eric Talley, professor of law and business at Columbia Law School, said it was unusual for a “small kind of minnow company” to be “trying to eat the whale." The lack of obvious synergies between companies that do not operate in the same industry made the deal “a bit of a head scratcher from a textbook perspective”, he added. Ebay remains one of the largest global online marketplaces, but it has long been seen as a laggard in innovation compared with Amazon and newer ecommerce platforms such as Vinted. GameStop, for its part, has struggled to define a post-meme craze identity. Combining the two companies could, Cohen’s logic goes, create a platform with both scale and a revitalised retail investor base. The maths behind the deal sets up a steep challenge for GameStop. Cohen has access to almost $40 billion of funding — comprised of a $20 billion financing commitment from TD Bank, roughly $9 billion cash on GameStop’s balance sheet and $10.7 billion worth of GameStop stock. That leaves a financing gap of roughly $16 billion to be filled, most likely through additional stock issuance. In normal circumstances that kind of gap would be prohibitive — but GameStop is not a normal stock. Its investor base has in the past shown a willingness to support management through highly unconventional capital raises. “I can kind of see the investment thesis, but it involves such a huge upfront financial commitment from GameStop that you have to assume there’s a degree of reliance on meme stock boosts,” said Ann Lipton, a law professor at the University of Colorado. “So far, those don’t seem to be materializing. So I’m skeptical they can pull it off,” she added. Michael Burry, the “Big Short” investor who gained notoriety from his bet against the U.S. housing market ahead of the 2008 financial crisis, had until recently been one of Cohen’s more prominent supporters. But that position has abruptly changed. On Monday Burry said he was likely to sell his stake in GameStop partly as a response to Cohen’s decision to go all in on eBay, a deal he perceives as too big and loaded with risk. “If GameStop wants to do it with billions of interest expense and all manner of covenants restricting its movements, it will not be breaking new ground,” he said on his blog. “It will be trotting in well-worn ruts on the road to capitalist hell.” Cohen had a chance to make his pitch to investors on Monday during an interview on CNBC, but he ended up sparring with the hosts while offering little detail on financing. His performance immediately became a meme. Cohen’s supporters took to social media to accuse the mainstream media of a “hit job." But while the odds may look stacked against him, the person who has worked closely with Cohen cautioned that it would be a mistake to bet against a cowboy investor with “nothing to lose”.

Read the article

4/30/2026

Lululemon’s New CEO Is Already in the Hot Seat—and She Hasn’t Even Started

Wall Street Journal (04/30/26) Thomas, Lauren; Kapner, Suzanne

Lululemon’s (NASDAQ: LULU) board members were under pressure. The company’s estranged founder had launched a proxy fight, with Elliott Investment Management waiting in the wings, and the board was being pushed to quickly recruit a new chief executive who could turn things around. When Lululemon landed on former Nike (NYSE: NKE) executive Heidi O’Neill for the job last week, Chairwoman Marti Morfitt and the board thought they had it in the bag. But the pick backfired spectacularly. Lululemon shares tanked, falling 13% the day of the announcement, and they have declined further since. Wall Street analysts critiqued her tenure at Nike, and investors complained that she wouldn’t be starting the new job for more than four months, leaving the struggling company without a permanent leader at a vulnerable time. Lululemon said in a statement that O’Neill has the full support of the board, which remains confident that her proven track record and operational expertise make her the right choice to lead the company. Days after naming O’Neill to the CEO job, Lululemon announced a new board member: former senior Unilever (NYSE: UL) executive Esi Eggleston Bracey. She will replace Colgate-Palmolive (NYSE: CL) Chief Operating Officer Shane Grant, who had been a target of Lululemon founder Chip Wilson. That announcement was seen by some as a way to try to contain some of the damage, but it made some investors—including Wilson—more furious. He has since said that the company replaced one “bean counter” with another. The addition of Bracey to the board was unrelated to the CEO announcement, according to a person familiar with the situation. Lululemon has been wading through turmoil for over a year, facing the public attack from Wilson and additional scrutiny from Elliott Investment Management. Wilson has been agitating for a board overhaul, and The Wall Street Journal has reported that Elliott was looking to help the retailer find a new leader. Both believe the business is challenged and the brand mismanaged, with sales in North America declining. The last CEO, Calvin McDonald, departed in January. O’Neill carries the weight of a Nike resume, but also some baggage. The longtime Nike employee worked there for over 25 years, most recently as president of consumer, product and brand. Under her watch, Nike doubled down on its direct-to-consumer approach, cutting out partnerships with retailers such as Macy’s (NYSE: M) and DSW, a move largely seen by former executives and investors as the main reason for Nike’s current struggles. Nike is still undoing much of the fallout from its direct-to-consumer push. After O’Neill’s departure, Nike split up her role into three separate positions. In announcing O’Neill’s appointment, Lululemon highlighted how much global scale she helped achieve at Nike. That didn’t sit right with some analysts, who have countered that fixing the U.S. business should take priority over global growth. “This is not a tuneup. It is a turnaround,” said Bill Campbell, director of research at Paragon Intel, a management research and analysis company. “The mandate is to fix North America, restore full-price discipline, reignite product newness, and put energy back into the brand. O’Neill may help stabilize the business, but she does not look like the obvious architect of the deeper reset this moment demands.” Other analysts are more upbeat. “She brings a significant breadth of knowledge in women’s performance apparel and her experience accelerating speed-to-market is particularly welcome at Lululemon where lead times have ballooned to about 24 months,” said William Blair analyst Sharon Zackfia. Analysts and investors will have to wait several months to see what O’Neill brings to the table. She has a noncompete agreement with Nike that means she can’t start the job until Sept. 8. In the meantime, the company is being run by interim co-CEOs Meghan Frank, who is the finance chief, and André Maestrini, the chief commercial officer. In March, Frank told investors that the company was working on fixing its U.S. business. “A top priority for the management team is returning to full-price sales growth in North America,” she said, explaining that the company was adding more new products and rebalancing its inventory to reinforce its premium positioning. A Lululemon investor said they’ve been disappointed that the company hasn’t made any major changes under the co-CEOs, and aren’t expecting any to come until O’Neill is able to take over and get her arms around the business. Wilson, in a letter to shareholders Wednesday, pointed out that the company would be without a permanent CEO for nearly 300 days, a decision that he said “escapes logic.” He said he hoped that O’Neill would be the right person for the job, but added that her long tenure at Nike “is not the symbol of transformative, creative-first leadership.” Wilson and O’Neill have exchanged messages since the news of her appointment, according to people familiar with the matter. Some big investors were pressuring Morfitt, who helped run the search for the next CEO, to move quickly. They felt the board wasn’t grasping the urgency of the company’s problems and the need to move fast to turn the business around. Executive search firm Korn Ferry conducted the CEO search for Lululemon. Other candidates under consideration in addition to O’Neill included Jane Nielsen, the former chief financial officer of Ralph Lauren (NYSE: RL), whom Elliott Investment Management had been pushing for the role. Elliott took a stake worth over $1 billion in the company as it tried to help facilitate a turnaround after McDonald’s (NYSE: MCD) abrupt departure, the Journal reported in December. Nielsen underwent an extensive interview process for the CEO job that lasted a few months, people familiar with the matter said. Nielsen had also been in discussions with Wilson about potentially joining his board slate, before she joined Elliott’s campaign to be CEO, according to people familiar with the matter. Other names circulating included Arc’teryx Equipment CEO Stuart Haselden. He had previously spent five years at Lululemon in roles ranging from finance chief to chief operating officer before leaving in 2020. Another name floated was Abercrombie & Fitch (NYSE: ANF) CEO Fran Horowitz. But it would have been too costly to buy her out of her existing contract with the apparel retailer, some of the people said. Neither Haselden nor Horowitz ultimately interviewed for the position, according to people familiar with the search. The Lululemon investor said that some shareholders were worried that a Lululemon insider was going to be tapped for the job, so O’Neill’s appointment was seen as a positive. But there also might have been some overly wishful thinking that someone with a bigger profile on Wall Street and more turnaround chops would end up as the next CEO, resulting in disappointment with O’Neill, the investor said. O’Neill’s appointment comes as Lululemon is engaged in a nasty proxy fight with Wilson, who has nominated a slate of three directors and argues that the company needs to refocus on its core values of creating innovative, premium activewear inspired by its muse—the Super Girl, a young, educated, working woman who is a trendsetter. Wilson and Lululemon have attempted to settle their differences privately and prevent their very public fight over board seats from going all the way to a shareholder vote. He and his financial advisers offered a three-year standstill deal in exchange for his three board seats, Wilson said in his letter to shareholders. Wilson’s three board nominees were also interviewed by Lululemon as it considered them for seats, the company said in a proxy filing this week. The company has argued that Wilson kept moving the goal posts on the terms of a potential settlement. Wilson says the board was seeking to have him put millions of dollars into an escrow account to cover a “hypothetical, potential future breach of the nondisparagement” clause. Lululemon hasn’t yet announced a date for its annual meeting. But a resolution seemed to move further away after O’Neill was named to the top job. Wilson is turning the heat back up. “All the roads of Lululemon’s value destruction lead back to one place: the Boardroom,” he wrote to shareholders. “This all comes back to the Board’s inability to understand the core drivers of the brand’s premium positioning and success.” When the company named O’Neill as its next CEO, Morfitt highlighted her vision and her three decades of experience in the retail sector. “We were thrilled by [the] candidates we saw,” Morfitt told the Journal in an interview the day the news was announced. She described the candidates as “very high caliber” and said “many of them said they would not make a move except for this one.” O’Neill stood out as “the clear choice to serve as the company’s next leader,” she said.

Read the article

4/29/2026

How Toilet Maker Toto Turned its Ceramics Know-How Into an AI Play

Nikkei Asia (04/29/26)

Japan's Toto (TYO: 5332) may be best known for churning out toilets, bathtubs and kitchens, but its earnings are now anchored by a very different kind of product: high-precision ceramic components used in the kind of semiconductor manufacturing equipment crucial to sustaining the artificial intelligence boom. After five decades of slow burn, this advanced ceramics business is set to generate well over half the group's operating profit in the fiscal year that ended in March, eclipsing its storied Japanese home equipment division for the first time. But British fund Palliser Capital says Toto needs to push its high-tech ceramics unit further into the spotlight, urging improvements in transparency and strategy. In a February letter, it called on management to "improve disclosure" on the division "to provide transparency on its competitive strength and growth outlook, ensuring its true value is appropriately reflected" in the company's share price. The London-based fund, which has accumulated a stake in Toto, has a track record of pushing for governance shifts at Japanese companies, including Keisei Electric Railway (TYO: 9009) and Japan Post (TYO: 6178). It also argues that Toto's investment into the fast-growing ceramics business is too modest. If Toto improves its disclosure and allocates more capital to its ceramics unit, the fund estimates that could push up the company's share price by as much as 55% -- from roughly 6,000 yen ($37.56) at the time of the letter to nearly 9,000 yen, far above the previous peak of 7,380 yen, hit in 2021. Toto's share price closed at 5,425 yen on Tuesday, ahead of its earnings announcement on April 30. Toto expects operating profit from the advanced ceramic division to jump 32% to a record 27 billion yen ($169 million) in the fiscal year ended March 2026. The segment is set to outperform the company's Japanese housing equipment business again, which is projected to earn 18 billion yen, and its overseas housing equipment unit at 7 billion yen -- giving ceramics a commanding 55% share of total operating profit. With the AI boom driving strong demand for semiconductor-related materials, expectations for further growth are rising. As more Japanese manufactures, such as Hitachi and Fujitsu, have boosted profitability by reshaping their business portfolios in recent years, investors are increasingly looking for Toto to follow a similar trajectory. Toto's ceramic research began in the 1970s, as Japan's postwar period of rapid growth tapered off and waves of home construction completed. "We wanted to use our ceramic expertise to create high-value products," said Junji Kameshima, manager of Toto's ceramics business planning department. The ceramics division was formally established in 1984. Its portfolio eventually crystallized around three core products for chipmaking equipment. First, electrostatic chucks, or e-chucks, for etching tools that form circuits on silicon wafers used in NAND flash memory for long-term storage. These devices electrostatically clamp the wafer to the chuck. Second, aerosol deposition components that protect chamber walls in etching equipment for logic semiconductors. Third, highly durable structural parts used in manufacturing equipment for large LCD panels. All draw on process technologies honed through decades of manufacturing toilets and other so-called sanitary ware. Early production was handcrafted and low-yield. But the 2020 launch of a highly automated plant in Nakatsu, in southern Japan's Oita prefecture, coupled with AI systems trained to detect tiny signs of defects, transformed output. Yield -- or the percentage of non-defective items produced -- jumped to over 90% from 50%-60% previously, while lead times shrank from roughly 180 days to just over 40. The segment's operating margin is now projected to exceed 40% for the fiscal year ended March, compared with barely 9% five years ago. Of Toto's 175 billion yen in strategic spending planned in the three years through March 2027, only 29 billion yen is earmarked for ceramics, the smallest allocation among the items listed. Global manufacturing optimization and other international operations account for 72 billion yen, IT initiatives for 42 billion, and domestic operations for 32 billion yen. While semiconductors are prone to the industry's well-known "silicon cycle," or the periodic swings between boom and bust, Ryosuke Hayashi, Toto's chief technology officer, does not foresee a drop in NAND-related capital expenditure anytime soon. "I don't expect a major pullback. We may not see the bust in 2027," he said. SEMI, the international semiconductor industry association, also forecasts that revenue in the global chip manufacturing equipment sector will grow 9% in 2026 from 2025, followed by an 8% increase in 2027 from 2026. Electrostatic chucks should benefit both from new demand and from replacement needs as existing units wear down. The bigger question is how aggressively Toto will invest from here -- both to capture replacement demand and to win new customers. One promising frontier is chiplet integration, a technology that boosts performance by combining multiple chips. Toto believes its structural parts are well-suited for chiplet-fixture materials, Hayashi said, and development work "is already underway." The ceramics business also complements Toto's housing equipment operations. At its research site in Kanagawa prefecture, the company has installed cutting-edge analytical tools originally required for semiconductor development; these now support both businesses. "Ceramics grew thanks to earnings from Japanese housing equipment," Kameshima told Nikkei, adding "the restructuring in our Chinese housing equipment business was possible because ceramics succeeded." Still, investor understanding has lagged. As recently as five years ago, Hayashi recalled investors asking, "Can any of this [ceramics technology] be used in a kitchen?" "Sanitary ware and semiconductors are worlds apart," said Sachiko Okada, an analyst at Goldman Sachs Japan. "Many investors still have no idea what Toto is capable of. They don't grasp Toto's strengths."

Read the article

4/28/2026

Ingles Markets’ Real Estate Grabs Attention in Proxy Fight

Grocery Dive (04/28/26) Silverstein, Sam

As Ingles Markets (NASDAQ: IMKTA) braces for shareholders to vote this week on whether to elect a change-minded outside investor nominated by a vocal investment firm to its board of directors, the chain’s real estate strategy has emerged as a key flash point. Summer Road, the investment firm that is trying to persuade investors to vote for that nominee, Rory Held, during Ingles’ annual meeting on Thursday, contends that Ingles has allowed hundreds of acres of land to sit “fallow and in disrepair, dragging down corporate returns and failing the communities Ingles serves.” Summer Road says it is the beneficial owner of about 3% of the outstanding shares of Ingles’ Class A common stock. The investment firm added in a proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that it believes Ingles has underperformed compared with other grocery store operators, in part because it has not effectively used the land it owns. “The Company has allocated significant resources to acquiring land and buildings – often former competitor sites – that appear to sit idle or earn no meaningful economic return for shareholders,” Summer Road said. In a statement Summer Road provided to Grocery Dive, Held said he is concerned that Ingles has not developed land it owns into new stores or shopping centers or “put to other productive uses.” “Ultimately, the company’s inaction has resulted in stranded costs and significant lost economic opportunity for shareholders and for the communities in which it operates,” Held said in the statement. Ingles said the investment firm has vastly overstated the grocer’s real estate holdings, adding that undeveloped land “is strategically important to our long-term growth.” Summer Road’s claims illustrate that it has a “total lack of understanding of Ingles’ real estate holdings,” Ingles said. Ingles also argues that the company's properties — which include the land that 174 of its 194 supermarkets sit on — enable it to remain agile by giving it the “flexibility to expand and rearrange store offerings to address evolving customer preferences.” In addition, the grocer also says that owning land strengthens its balance sheet, adding that it has received more than $30 million in gross rent from its tenants. “For grocers broadly, owned real estate is one of the most important drivers of long-term value. For Ingles in particular, strategic ownership of assets provides competitive value creation advantages, including operational control and growth opportunities,” Ingles said in a presentation aimed at dissuading shareholders from voting for Held. If elected to Ingles’ eight-member board, Held will push the company to investigate dividing the retailer’s real estate and grocery operations into two separate companies, according to an April 1 statement from Summer Road. “This separation would likely result in a material re-rating of the Company’s valuation, optimize the capital structure of both entities and potentially catalyze strategic interest from larger grocers,” Summer Road said. Separating the company as Summer Road has suggested would amount to a sale-leaseback strategy that “would be value destructive to Ingles,” according to the grocer. “Charging rent to every store would wipe away profitability and compensation that our valued employees benefit from,” Ingles said. A spokesperson for Ingles said the company did not wish to comment and pointed to the grocer’s published statements about Held's nomination. The dispute over Ingles' approach to managing its real estate points to a fundamental issue retailers routinely grapple with as they decide how to deploy resources, said David Halliday, associate teaching professor of strategic management and public policy at the George Washington University School of Business. For retailers, deciding whether to own or lease land for their facilities includes examining how they want to deploy capital, because investing money into land means those funds are unavailable for other uses that might deliver a higher rate of return, Halliday said. Part of making that choice for a given store involves assessing the risk that the retailer might not be able to renew its lease, which could be problematic if developing the facility requires costly work. Another factor retailers have to consider is that grocers’ stores tend to be attractive tenants for real estate investment trusts, which own many of the nation’s shopping centers, Halliday said. “There is a very massive, very deep pool of capital available for reasonable projects and grocery stores are one of the most sought-after REIT investments, especially considering that the real estate developers can get a 20-year leaseback once they build the property,” Halliday said. “Their goal isn’t to take advantage of the grocery stores. Their goal is to build a market-rate, high-quality asset that returns a solid future investment,” Halliday said. Ingles is not alone among publicly traded grocers in owning a high percentage of the properties its stores occupy, although food retailers that fall into that category tend to be national chains. Walmart (NASDAQ: WMT), for example, owned more than 3,700 of the over 4,600 stores it runs in the United States as of Jan. 31, while Costco (NASDAQ: COST) owned the land and buildings that are home to 512 of the 629 membership warehouses it operated in the United States and Puerto Rico as of Aug. 31, 2025. By contrast, Kroger (NYSE: KR) owned just over half of the facilities that are home to its nearly 2,700 supermarkets as of Jan. 31, although some of those sit on land the company leases. Meanwhile, about 40% of Albertsons’ (NYSE: ACI) 2,244 stores were in facilities the company owns or leases as of Feb. 28. Weis Markets (NYSE: WMK) owned 108 of the 202 grocery stores it operated as of Dec, 27, 2025. Ingles has also asserted that Held’s role as chief investment officer of Summer Road would pose a risk to the company and its shareholders because the investment firm manages money that belongs to the Sackler family, which formerly controlled opioid medicine maker Purdue Pharma. That company was forced into bankruptcy in connection with its links to the opioid crisis. The grocer has urged shareholders to vote for its two nominees to the board: Dwight Jacobs, a former Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK) senior executive, and Rebekah Lowe, a former regional bank president.

Read the article

4/24/2026

Opinion: Lululemon’s CEO Choice Is a Missed Chance to Pacify Elliott

Bloomberg (04/24/26) Felsted, Andrea

Bloomberg Opinion columnist Andrea Felsted writes that Lululemon Athletica Inc. (NASDAQ: LULU) has named former Nike Inc. (NYSE: NKE) executive Heidi O’Neill as its new chief executive officer, replacing Calvin McDonald who stepped down in December. The surprise appointment risks pleasing no one: Neither two powerful shareholders, nor other investors who sent the stock down to a six-year low on Thursday. Elliott Investment Management LP, which took a $1 billion stake in the yoga pants maker in December, had been working with former Ralph Lauren Corp. (NYSE: RL) Chief Operating Officer Jane Nielsen as its preferred CEO candidate. Meanwhile, Lululemon founder Chip Wilson, who no longer has a formal role with the company but remains a significant shareholder, had called for the board to be refreshed before the next CEO was chosen. At least Lululemon now has a leader from outside of the company who can roll up their sleeves and tackle its considerable challenges, although unhelpfully she won’t start until September. The company faces several headwinds, including intense competition from nimble upstarts such as Alo Yoga and SoftBank Group Corp. (SFTBY)-backed Vuori, fashion tastes moving to smart from slouchy and a fresh see-through leggings fiasco after its new “Get Low” workout pants stretched too thin when wearers performed squats. O’Neill is a seasoned executive with decades of experience in the athletic-wear business. She spent 26 years at Nike, and was considered to be a candidate to replace former CEO John Donahoe, according to Bloomberg News. So she stands a good chance of getting to grips with Lululemon’s many issues. But Nike is also struggling with problems that aren’t a million miles from Lululemon’s: powerful challengers in the running-shoes category, Adidas AG’s dominance of more fashion-forward ranges and a brand that just doesn’t seem to be doing it anymore. Shares in Lululemon fell as much as 13% on Thursday. It’s hard to see why the company didn’t choose Nielsen. She had a strong track record at Ralph Lauren, where with CEO Patrice Louvet she helped polish the brand’s image and halted its habit of discounting. Nielsen would have been able to tackle the nuts and bolts of retailing, such as controlling costs, trimming the store estate and matching demand from shoppers with the supply of leggings, sports bras and other basics, thereby fattening margins. Part of Ralph Lauren’s success has been concentrating on its “hero” products such as sweaters and blazers. This strategy could have been applied at Lululemon by jettisoning lines such as the tie-up with the National Football League and focusing on the yoga pants that made it famous. Nielsen is already well known to investors and analysts, too. Appointing Nielsen wouldn’t have waved a magic wand. Part of the reason Lululemon has been struggling in North America is stale products; that wasn’t part of her portfolio at Ralph Lauren. But she would likely have been able to bring in the right team. It’s not clear that O’Neill has sufficient product expertise either. Her final role at Nike, between June 2023 and September 2025, was leading its consumer, product and brand operations, where she helped launch the partnership with Kim Kardashian’s shapewear line Skims. She was also head of Nike’s women’s business between 2007 and 2014. But in between, she ran Nike’s own stores and website. This side of the business is being de-emphasized by a new CEO after Donahoe moved too far away from selling its sneakers and hoodies through third-party retailers, giving shelf-space to rivals. Elliott has little choice now other than to support O’Neill. But the investor — as well as other shareholders — may always be comparing her performance against what Nielsen might have achieved; Ralph Lauren’s shares have risen almost 200% over the past five years or so, while Nike’s have fallen 65% over the same period and are close to a nine-year low. The Lululemon board could have used the CEO appointment to get Elliott onside for a compelling turnaround plan. Choosing O’Neill looks like a missed opportunity to build bridges with one of the company’s detractors. The other critic is Wilson, who still owns 8.6% of the company and has called for a shake-up of Lululemon’s board. He’s proposed three candidates: Marc Maurer, the former co-CEO of sportswear apparel maker On Holding AG (NYSE: ONON), Laura Gentile, the former chief marketing officer of broadcaster ESPN Sports Media Ltd., and Eric Hirshberg, the former CEO of Activision, part of Microsoft Corp.’s (NASDAQ: MSFT) games maker Activision Blizzard Inc. (NASDAQ: ATVI). While Lululemon last month named former Levi Strauss & Co (NYSE: LEVI) CEO Chip Bergh to its board — a step in the right direction — Wilson wants more extensive change, and is unlikely to give up his fight, creating a further distraction for the new CEO. Whoever was hired to lead Lululemon already faced a monumental task. The messy backdrop to O’Neill’s appointment has made it as difficult as doing a grueling workout in a pair of too-flimsy leggings.

Read the article

4/24/2026

Opinion: Swatch’s Governance Under Watch by Investors

Financial Times (04/24/26) Ruehl, Mercedes

Mercedes Ruehl, the Financial Times' Switzerland and Austria correspondent, writes that Swatch Group (SWX: UHR) sits at the center of a governance debate amid a battle over board representation. The company owns some of the best-known names in the industry, from Omega and Longines to Breguet and Tissot. It helped rescue Swiss watchmaking in the 1980s and remains a symbol of industrial Switzerland. It also has been struggling. Its shares have fallen by more than 40% in the past decade, although they are up about 6% since the start of the year. Net profit plunged almost 90% last year to just SFr25 million — on top of a 75% drop in 2024. Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) has estimated the company has lost market share in some areas — although the company has strongly disputed the bank’s figures. Much of this owing to external factors such as weakening demand from China, the impact of U.S. tariffs and a stronger Swiss franc. And the luxury market has cooled. Recent data underlines the pressure. Swiss watch exports fell in March and growth in the first quarter was modest. Analysts at Vontobel this week suggested that even this is likely to overstate underlying demand. But not all the problems at Swatch are because of external factors. Some investors point to internal problems with strategy, execution and governance. That puts the spotlight on the Hayek family — with Nick Hayek as chief executive and his sister Nayla as chair. It retains tight control, owning about a quarter of the equity but close to half the voting rights. Nick, the son of the company’s founder, has clashed strongly with critics, once declaring on an earnings call that if investors don’t like the company or the way it’s governed, they can invest elsewhere. This is where the question of the “good director” becomes more than theoretical. Hayek family members hold three of the company’s seven board seats. Another director, Daniela Aeschlimann, has longstanding ties to the shareholder pool that underpins the family’s control. Other directors are long-serving. The newest recruit as director who is not a representative of the main shareholders has been on the board for around 16 years. For more than a year, a small shareholder — Steven Wood of GreenWood Investors — has been seeking board representation to challenge the status quo. The company has been resisting. Next month’s annual meeting will mark Wood’s second attempt to gain a board seat, even as his firm has challenged last year’s AGM results in court. The case centers on whether the process complied with Swiss corporate law. After criticism of its governance, this year Swatch has nominated Andreas Rickenbacher, a former cantonal politician, entrepreneur and director on other boards. On his nomination, he said he would act independently as a director. He also said boards “are like collegial governments” — they work best when the body functions as a whole. Will that be enough for investors? Should it bring on a more explicit challenger of board thinking and strategy like Wood? Greenwood controls about 0.5% of the voting rights of the company and holds just over 0.3% of the share capital. His holdings include more than 30,000 bearer shares compared with just 10 held by Jean-Pierre Roth, the current representative of bearer shareholders. Swatch’s board has opposed Wood’s candidacy, questioning the extent of his sector experience and stating it wanted its board directors to be either Swiss citizens or have Swiss residency. Wood is American. Activist investors are not always ideal board candidates. For some companies, they can be seen as awkward disrupters. In markets like the United States or UK, it is more common for activists to join boards than in Switzerland. Swatch says that if Rickenbacher is elected, its board will be composed of four members that represent majority shareholders and four that are fully independent. It adds the company’s governance and board of directors composition is in line with Swiss law, which allows for directors to be re-elected without any limitation in time. But if Swatch shares and company performance come under further pressure, the questions from investors over whether there is enough internal challenge on strategy at the board level are not likely to go away.

Read the article

4/21/2026

A Little Pressure Helped Pepsi. Can the Rest of the Food Industry Follow?

Wall Street Journal (04/21/26) Wainer, David

PepsiCo (NASDAQ: PEP) just pulled off something rare in the food industry: It got consumers to come back. For the past few years, food companies raised prices so aggressively that shoppers revolted, trading down to store brands and buying less. Now the industry is running the playbook in reverse, cutting prices and investing more in marketing and innovation. The strategy makes sense in theory. In practice, it is proving brutally difficult. PepsiCo, which owns the massive Frito-Lay snacking empire, has more breathing space than most. Still, its effective use of price reductions might point the way for rivals. Last week, the food and beverage giant reported a quarterly earnings beat and reaffirmed its full-year guidance. Crucially, its North American food division, which includes the likes of Lay's and Doritos, saw volume growth of 2% after several consecutive quarters of declines. Its international business grew even faster. For a food industry that has been losing volume to private-label alternatives, it is a remarkable feat, especially given the fact that companywide margins actually expanded. The results were the early signs of progress under a plan hashed out with Elliott Management last December. The two sides agreed on a straightforward logic: Cut costs aggressively, trim the product lineup, then use the savings to lower prices and reinvest in the business to win consumers back. In February, the company cut prices on many of its snack products, including Lay's, Doritos and Cheetos. To fund it, PepsiCo has been reducing head count, closing plants and streamlining what it sells. Size helps. PepsiCo's massive scale, parallel beverages business and vast distribution network give it the financial cushion to restructure and invest in consumers at the same time—something smaller or more narrowly focused rivals have found harder to pull off. “We've got some things that are really working in our favor that allow us to play offense as much as we have to grow volume,” Chief Financial Officer Stephen Schmitt said on the company's earnings call last week. PepsiCo has also pushed into restaurants and convenience stores and added better-for-you products such as Siete chips, a category which is experiencing better revenue expansion than the rest of the business. Many food companies are attempting variations of the same strategy with considerably less to work with. Both General Mills (NYSE: GIS) and Campbell’s (NASDAQ: CPB) have cut their financial projections for this year, as their businesses project continued sales declines. Both are cutting prices and spending more to win consumers back. Neither is seeing the consumer response PepsiCo is reporting. Their stocks reflect that skepticism: While Pepsi’s shares are up roughly 9% this year, General Mills and Campbell’s have both fallen more than 20%. The lesson isn’t lost on the broader industry. Last month, McCormick (NYSE: MKC) announced a roughly $45 billion deal to acquire Unilever’s (NYSE: UL) food business including Hellmann’s in a bet that greater scale is what the current environment demands. Food companies can cut prices as long as inflation remains manageable. But a prolonged Middle East conflict could push costs back up—as commodity shocks did following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022—putting the industry in a real bind. Companies might face the uncomfortable choice of passing increases on to consumers who have already made clear they have little appetite for them. Those risks were brought into stark relief during Pepsi’s earnings. While PepsiCo has hedges that protect it from jumps in commodity prices for up to a year, management acknowledged that inflation is likely to hit in 2027. The last thing the company wants to do is to raise prices. It prefers to push harder on cost cuts first. Schmitt said reducing package sizes—the industry’s time-honored way of raising prices without appearing to—remains a last resort. But, as CFRA senior analyst Garrett Nelson has said, deploying that too soon would risk undermining the volume recovery. For now, PepsiCo has done something genuinely rare. The question is whether it can hold that balance as costs rise, and whether its rivals can find a way to follow.

Read the article