There’s a monstrosity going on right now in the hedge fund world. Activist investors are pulling an ol’ number 6 on female CEOs across the S&P 500.
Big-name activists like Carl Icahn and Bill Ackman are targeting companies led by female CEOs, because they’re easier targets.
Icahn’s recent target, Xerox, is led by Ursula Burns.
Nelson Peltz has active campaigns targeting DuPont – Ellen Kullman, Pepsi – Indra Nooyi, and Mondelez – Irene Rosenfeld.
Bill Ackman has joined Peltz in the Mondelez circle jerk.
Jeff Smith has taken on Marissa Mayer at Yahoo.
Even David Tepper got in on the action this year by teaming up with Harry Wilson to get force Mary Barra at GM into a buyback.
As it turns out, female CEOs are much more accommodating when it comes shareholder rights, which by default, makes them easy targets. A catch 22 caught in a vicious cycle. Of the 27 female CEOs in the S&P 500, only 1 has a takeover defense in place. 1-in-4 male CEOs have their company geared up for any activist looking to make a run at it.
Activists have claimed they are taking on underperforming companies and not simply targeting women. Does that mean that female CEOs are poor leaders?
Well, weak shareholder rights aligns with poor stock performance, but female CEOs run a tight corporate governance department with strong shareholder rights.
Something’s amiss here.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
There is nothing amiss. The “activist investors” simply recognize that human nature doesn’t change…regardless of the corporate press releases to the contrary.
Explain yourself. I do not agree that activists should have forced Marissa to have an abortion.
Forced abortion? I don’t know anything about that. But I stand by my statement. The correct inferences are easily drawn, based on the evidence. Perhaps I should have used the word “propaganda” in place of “corporate press releases” but I consider them one in the same.