The Economist is at it again, with yet another paean to shareholder activism. Or, more precisely,two: The latest print issue has both a leader and a briefing on the subject.
Neither contains any new arguments. Most of the briefing is devoted to a more or less accurate (albeit slanted) factual summary of the current state of play. The "analysis" is short, one-sided, and really doesn't say anything new about the merits of shareholder activism. There is no effort to engage the counter-arguments; indeed, there is virtually no acknowledgement that there are serious theoretical and empirical arguments against shareholder activism.
Instead of recounting those arguments, however, I will simply point you to my prior efforts to help The Economist see the light:
|
|
Mar 7, 2013 ... The Economist is ineducable on shareholder activism. I still enjoy reading The Economist even though it seems at times to be drifting away from ...
www.professorbainbridge.com/.../the-economist-is-ineducable-on- shareholder-activism.html
|
|
|
Feb 13, 2014 ... From this week's leader: An analysis of around 2000 interventions in America during 1994-2007 found not only that the share prices and ...
www.professorbainbridge.com/.../everything-the-economist-says-about- shareholder-activism-is-wrong.html
|
|
Oct 9, 2014 ... The latest edition of The Economist is once again beating the drums for shareholder activism. (As I've said before, I love them despite their ...
www.professorbainbridge.com/.../the-economist-is-at-it-again-making-a-case- for-shareholder-activism.html
|
