アクティビストが善か悪か？
すごいタイトルですね。
違法でない仕事を善とか悪とかで判断してんでしょうか？
本当に善とか悪とかいう問題なんでしょうか？
上場企業は利益を上げて当然株主に還元しなんぼかと思います。利益の上げ方、還元率が低ければ、当然、株価は下がりますよね。そういう企業に刺激を与えるのが、アクティビストですよね。
一般の少数株主は発言権もないし、我々に代わって、会社におかしい、もっと働けというのがアクティビストですよね。さらに頑張っても利益が上がらない会社に別の視点を与えて利益を高めるのがアクティビストではないですか？
私が思うに。
彼らも高額出資者がいて、それに対して、利益をしっかり払わなければならず、そのために、やっている面もあるでしょうが、利益を生んでさっと引くのは商売だからしようがないですよね。
元に戻って、善か悪か？と書いて、注意を引きたいんだろうが、悪と書いてだれが喜ぶんだろう？おそらく、会社を乗っ取られそうだという株主の期待に応えていない上場企業だけがそう思うんじゃないのかな？
Are activists good or bad?
That’s quite a title, isn’t it?
Are we correct to judge a perfectly legal activity in terms of good or bad?
Is this really a question of good or bad?
I believe it’s only natural for listed companies to make a profit and return value to their shareholders. If their profit-making methods are poor or the return rate is low, share prices will naturally fall, won’t they? Activists are there to spur on such companies, aren’t they?
Ordinary minority shareholders have no say, so activists act on our behalf, telling the company, ‘This isn’t right; you need to work harder.’ Furthermore, aren’t activists the ones who provide a different perspective to companies that struggle to increase profits despite their best efforts, thereby helping them boost their earnings?
That’s what I think, anyway.
They too have major investors, to whom they must pay a solid return, and whilst that is certainly part of the reason they act as they do, generating profits and then pulling out quickly is simply part of the business—there’s nothing to be done about it.
Returning to the original question: ‘Good or bad?’—I suppose the intention is to grab people’s attention, but who would actually be pleased to see it labelled ‘bad’? Presumably, it’s only listed companies that are failing to meet shareholders’ expectations—and who fear they might be taken over—that would think so, wouldn’t they?