How much change can somebody who has barely over one percent of shares really affect?
12 replies (most recent on top)
@10YKCjEz if you think a small percentaged voice can't make an impact you should apply your incredulous logic to current gender issues in the US. The meek shall... something... something.......
This explains how they almost always win:
https://fortune.com/2017/12/07/elliott-management-hedge-fund-paul-singer/
They're ruthless, they'll be following Randall and Stankey's kids around to dig up dirt - pretty much any means necessary to get their way.
Don't worry, it's just a little crack in the levee :)
They're not going into this fight alone. 1% gives Elliot a strong enough position to lead other investors who are sick and tired of Randall and Stanky's unending incompetence and want to see change.
AT&T's largest shareholder has already given their support to AT&T to all this noise.
It’s a shot across the bow. It got national attention. There has been little growth in stock price when compared to peers. Now everyone knows how messy these acquisitions have become. Whatever the case, we haven’t seen real cuts once a hedge fund starts creeping.
This additional scrutiny may not bode well for the magnitude and robustness of Randall's pending golden parachute That's sure to get a lot of press attention and activist shareholder complaint Not that he's going to walk away without a sovereign state sized packet, a sultan's fortune or a king's ransom
The noise is partly about getting some additional attention to the stock in order to run up the share price.
- activist hedge fund buys in
- makes noise, some changes made
- additional press coverage noise generated
- more trade interest pushes up share price
That's the plan anyway
AT&T is the 5th highest profit-generator of all US-HQ'd companies- more than Amazon and Walmart combined profits.
Have you read the letter? Although its pr-scrip-ions are typical wall street parasite talk (stock buyback instead of investing in the network or accelerating debt payoff), they nailed the bill of particulars against current executive "leadership". They enumerated Randall's three strikes and marveled at the incompetence that drove Randall to make Stank COO, thus further distracting him from Warner. Of course, given his childish, egotistical rant at Warner execs telling them he knew more than anyone there about TV. Oh, and they called out the incoherence of AT&T's streaming situation, the very thing that triggered Stankey's little temper tantrum in the first place. Yeah, they nailed it and AT&T was caught flat footed. Now that it has been said once, others will notice. And it will be a thing, count on it.
They are trying to get sweats in the board of directors. That’s why AT&T hires Goldman Sachs to head that off.
Because of the rise of passive investing, ETFs, and other large institutional investors, the percentage of stock owned in groups or blocks is quite large. Elliot Management only needs to influence those large groups to their way of thinking to amplify their position.
This is an honest question, I don't understand what all the fuss is about.