
""The whole premise of our markets were built on the backs of active investors, people actually choosing which companies deserve capital," Cohn told Axios' Dan Primack. "We can't have a situation where passive investors who are not choosing companies, who are not holding management accountable, who are not leading to market dynamism, control the votes at our largest US companies." "We just cannot have that. It's not healthy for us. It's not good for our economy. It's not good for our savers. It's not good for anybody with money in the market," he added."
"The firm expanded into podcasting last year, blasting calls for Southwest Airlines executives to step down over the airwaves. After Elliott relentlessly hammered Phillips 66 to sell off its midstream business, the oil refiner recently accused the firm of having a conflict of interest because it was simultaneously bidding on a competitor. Elliott took a $4 billion stake PepsiCo in September, and has encouraged the brand to slowly deconstruct itself by offloading some of its lines, such as Sodastream and Cap'n Crunch."
Cohn warned that passive investors controlling votes at large U.S. companies would reduce accountability and weaken market dynamism. He argued that active investors are essential for choosing which companies deserve capital and for holding management accountable. Elliott Management has pursued aggressive activism through public campaigns and podcasting to pressure executives and influence corporate decisions. The firm pressured Phillips 66 and targeted Southwest Airlines executives publicly, and it has faced accusations of conflicts during bidding. Elliott acquired a $4 billion stake in PepsiCo and advocated selling or spinning off businesses, and it manages roughly $76.1 billion in assets.
#activist-investing #passive-vs-active-ownership #corporate-governance #elliott-management #pepsico-breakup
Read at Axios
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]