Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Hmmm. Those guys are not what I would call "activists." The use of the word in this case is being done in a vacuum. Actually, they are uber-wealthy, greedy suckbags. "Activist" is a word that (truly) applies, for example, to the religious Orders of nuns and such who are shareholders, and who dare to introduce a measure of morality in terms of how a company does business, where to do business, etc.--- in response to actual, real circumstances in the world that 99.9% of us inhabit. The uber-wealthy greedy suckbags live elsewhere, and simply drive by now and then to make a fuss (and a "killing") in the Markets.
Those who followed Ackman into Canadian Pacific and P & G have done well (especially the former.) Those who followed Ackman into Target and Borders (and Herbalife, although who knows on that) have not.
An activist moving into something is no guarantee of doing well. You have to study it on a situation-by-situation basis and keep in mind that the activist is not going to tell you when they sell.
Notion of activism has broadened significantly from the earlier stand on principle to influence the company to the more recent increase my return in capital via financial shell games. The latter is an off shoot of too much cheap money allowing individual bets to dominate average investors.
Comments
An activist moving into something is no guarantee of doing well. You have to study it on a situation-by-situation basis and keep in mind that the activist is not going to tell you when they sell.