What Is an Activist Investor?

An activist investor, typically a specialized hedge fund, buys a significant minority stake in a publicly traded company in order to change how it is run.

The activist investor’s goals may be as modest as advising company management or as ambitious as forcing the sale of the company, divestitures or restructuring, or replacing the board of directors.

Unlike private equity firms that buy and restructure companies in order to profit when they are resold, activist investors seldom acquire full or majority stakes. Instead, they use public communications and private discussions to win over other shareholders and company insiders. When such efforts fail, an activist investor may pursue a proxy contest to elect new directors in order to force the company to meet their demands.

Understanding Activist Investors

Activist investors are sometimes called shareholder activists, a term also used to describe those lobbying companies to improve working conditions for the overseas employees of their contractors, or backers of a dissident board slate elected to fight climate change.

However, many activist investor campaigns seek only to maximize shareholder value, and most of those are the work of hedge funds specializing in the unique mix of public pressure, behind-the-scenes lobbying, and business expertise required.

Unlike the public pension funds and mutual funds that also engage in activism at times, activist hedge funds may hold highly concentrated stakes and supplement them with additional leverage from derivatives like stock options to offset the considerable cost of such campaigns. In contrast with institutional investors that sometimes turn to activism after owning a disappointing investment for years, activist hedge funds typically buy a stake in an underperforming company shortly before calling for change, and hope to profit from the resulting turnaround and price appreciation.

In contrast to institutional investors, activist hedge funds are also more willing to use confrontational tactics, from poison-pen letters to management and unflattering public reports to proxy fights seeking to oust incumbent directors.

How Activist Investors Make Their Case

Investor activists often announce their campaigns by filing a Schedule 13D form with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which must be filed within 10 calendar days of acquiring 5% or more of a company’s voting class shares.

Qualified institutional investors and passive investors, meaning those not trying to acquire or influence control of the company, may instead file a simplified Schedule 13G with less stringent disclosure requirements and thresholds. Schedule 13D filers must disclose, among other facts, their reasons for acquiring the stake and any plans they may have for the company in terms of mergers and acquisitions, asset disposals, capitalization or dividends, or other policies.

The initial 13D filing gives the activist investor a golden opportunity to publicize their case for change at the targeted company. At the same time, the filing curtails the activist’s ability to alter their stake in, and plans for, the company out of the public eye. Any changes to the facts disclosed on a Schedule 13D must be reported in an amended filing “promptly,” under current SEC rules.

Activist investors may use amended Schedule 13D filings to comment on a company’s response to their proposals. For example, when Netflix, Inc. (NFLX) adopted a poison pill after funds affiliated with Carl Icahn reported a stake of nearly 10% in the video streaming company, the funds filed an amended disclosure calling the poison pill “an example of poor corporate governance.” Activist investors may also write sharply worded letters to incumbent managers, issue press releases arguing their case to other shareholders, or privately lobby institutional investors to side with them.

The Future of Shareholder Activism

There has been a claim that “activism is dying,” lamented Carl Icahn in May 2022, contrasting the legendary investor’s few-holds-barred approach seen in the past. Some have feared the changes proposed to the Schedule 13D disclosure requirements in 2022 constitute a pressing threat, with Elliott Investment Management stating publicly that the proposed rules “will virtually shut down activism.”

In February 2022 the SEC had proposed shortening the initial Schedule 13 filing deadline from 10 calendar days to 5, with amendments due within a day of a material change rather than “promptly” as currently. The proposal, if passed, would effectively force 13D filers to specify holdings of derivatives (such as options) that confer an economic interest in the company without the shareholder rights associated with an outright stock position. Perhaps more controversially, the proposed rules would no longer require investors to agree to act in concert and be designated a single group by the SEC for Schedule 13D reporting purposes. Rules have also been proposed to make it harder for activist shareholders to squash a company’s environmental or other pro-ESG initiatives.

SEC Chair Gary Gensler argued the stepped up requirements proposed would address “an information asymmetry” between activist investors and other shareholders. Critics countered the proposed rules would make activism unprofitable by making it more difficult and costly for activist investors to accumulate significant stakes, while inhibiting communication among shareholders.

Despite these proposed rule changes, shareholder activism does not seem to be slowing down (at least, not yet). For example, activist investor Nelson Peltz reportedly made a profit of more than $150 million by acquiring shares of Disney (DIS) in November 2022, in a move that prompted a proxy fight against the returning CEO, Bob Iger; however, this brief fight was called off after Iger announced a restructuring plan that is expected to save the media giant $5.5 billion in costs and cut 7,000 employees. Peltz has expressed satisfaction with the company’s direction and decision to make changes, praising Iger and his management team. In early 2023, ValueAct Capital Management, a San Francisco-based activist hedge fund, took a stake in streaming media company Spotify Technology SA (SPOT), with the goal of cutting costs and streamlining management. ValueAct has also disclosed a major position and board seat in SalesForce (CRM), which now has no less than five large activist investor shareholders on board with long positions, resulting in early 2023 cost cutting measures that include layoffs of 10% of the company’s employees. In all three of the these examples, markets have reacted positively to the inclusion of activist shareholders, seeing their share prices afterwards outperform.

What Is the 80-20 Rule?

The 80-20 rule, also known as the Pareto Principle, is a familiar saying that asserts that 80% of outcomes (or outputs) result from 20% of all causes (or inputs) for any given event.

In business, a goal of the 80-20 rule is to identify inputs that are potentially the most productive and make them the priority. For instance, once managers identify factors that are critical to their company’s success, they should give those factors the most focus.

Although the 80-20 rule is frequently used in business and economics, you can apply the concept to any field. Wealth distribution, personal finance, spending habits, and even infidelity in personal relationships can all be the subject of the 80-20 rule.

How Does the 80-20 Rule Work?

You may think of the 80-20 rule as simple cause and effect: 80% of outcomes (outputs) come from 20% of causes (inputs). The rule is often used to point out that 80% of a company’s revenue is generated by 20% of its customers.

Viewed in this way, it might be advantageous for a company to focus on the 20% of clients that are responsible for 80% of revenues and market specifically to them. By doing so, the company may retain those clients, and acquire new clients with similar characteristics. However, there’s a more fundamental meaning to the 80-20 rule.

Core Principle

At its core, the 80-20 rule is about identifying an entity’s best assets and using them efficiently to create maximum value. For example, a student should try to identify which parts of a textbook will create the most benefit for an upcoming exam and focus on those first. This does not imply, however, that the student should ignore the other parts of the textbook.

Misinterpretations

People may not realize that the 80-20 rule is a precept, not a hard-and-fast mathematical law. Furthermore, it is isn’t necessary that the percentages equal 100%. Inputs and outputs simply represent different units. The percentages of these units don’t have to add up to 100%. It’s the concept behind the rule that matters.

There’s another way in which the 80-20 rule is misinterpreted. Namely, that if 20% of inputs are most important, then the other 80% must not be important. This is a logical fallacy. The 80% can be important, even if the decision is made to prioritize the 20%.

80-20 Rule Background

The 80-20 rule is also known as the Pareto principle and is applied in Pareto analysis. It was first used in macroeconomics to describe the distribution of wealth in Italy in the early 20th century. It was introduced in 1906 by Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who is best known for the concepts of Pareto efficiency.

Pareto noticed that 20% of the pea pods in his garden were responsible for 80% of the peas. Pareto expanded this principle to macroeconomics by showing that 80% of the wealth in Italy was owned by 20% of the population.

In the 1940s, Dr. Joseph Juran, a prominent figure in the field of operations management, applied the 80-20 rule to quality control for business production.

He demonstrated that 80% of product defects were caused by 20% of the problems in production methods. By focusing on and reducing the 20% of production problems, a business could increase the overall quality of its products. Juran referred to this phenomenon as “the vital few and the trivial many.”

Benefits of the 80-20 Rule

Although there is little scientific analysis that either proves or disproves the 80-20 rule’s validity, there is much anecdotal evidence that supports the rule as being essentially valid, if not numerically accurate.

Performance results of salespeople in a wide range of businesses have demonstrated success by incorporating the 80-20 rule. In addition, external consultants who use Six Sigma and other management strategies have incorporated the 80-20 principle in their practices with good results.

Example of the 80-20 Rule

A Harvard graduate student, Carla, was working on an assignment for her digital communications class. The project was to create a blog and monitor its success during the course of a semester.

Carla designed, created, and launched the site. Midway through the term, the professor conducted an evaluation of the blogs. Carla’s blog, though it had achieved some visibility, generated the least amount of traffic compared with her classmates’ blogs.

Define the Problem

Carla happened upon an article about the 80-20 rule. It said that you can use this concept in any field. So, Carla began to think about how she might apply the 80-20 rule to her blog project. She thought, “I used a great deal of my time, technical ability, and writing expertise to build this blog. Yet, for all of this expended energy, I am getting very little traffic to the site.”

She now understood that even if a piece of content is spectacular, it is worth virtually nothing if no one reads it. Carla deduced that perhaps her marketing of the blog was a greater problem than the blog itself.

Apply the 80-20 Rule

To apply the 80-20 rule, Carla decided to assign her 80% to all that went into creating the blog, including its content. Her 20% would be represented by a selection of the blog’s visitors.

Using web analytics, Carla focused closely on the blog’s traffic. She asked herself:

• Which sources comprise the top 20% of traffic to my blog?
• Who are the top 20% of my audience that I wish to reach?
• What are the characteristics of this audience as a group?
• Can I afford to invest more money and effort into satisfying my top 20% readers?
• In terms of content, which blog posts constitute the top 20% of my best-performing topics?
• Can I improve upon those topics, and get even more traction from my content than I’m getting now?

Carla analyzed the answers to these questions, and edited her blog accordingly:

1. She adjusted the blog’s design and persona to align with her top 20% target audience (a strategy common in micromarketing).
2. She rewrote some content to meet her target reader’s needs more fully.

Significantly, although her analysis did confirm that the blog’s biggest problem was its marketing, Carla did not ignore its content. She remembered the common fallacy cited in the article—if 20% of inputs are most important, then the other 80% must be unimportant—and did not want to make that mistake. She knew it was necessary to address aspects of the content, as well.

Results

By applying the 80-20 rule to her blog project, Carla came to understand her audience better and therefore targeted her top 20% of readers more purposefully. She reworked the blog’s structure and content based on what she learned, and traffic to her site rose by more than 220%.

What Are Animal Spirits?

“Animal spirits” is a term coined by the famous British economist, John Maynard Keynes, to describe how people arrive at financial decisions, including buying and selling securities, in times of economic stress or uncertainty. In Keynes’s 1936 publication, The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, he speaks of animal spirits as the human emotions that affect consumer confidence.

Today, animal spirits describe the psychological and emotional factors that drive investors to take action when faced with high levels of volatility in the capital markets. The term comes from the Latin spiritus animalis, which means “the breath that awakens the human mind.” In some ways, Keynes’ insights into human behavior predicted the rise of behavioral economics.

Understanding Animal Spirits

The technical concept of spiritus animalis can be traced as far back as 300 B.C., in the fields of human anatomy and medical physiology. There, animal spirits applied to the fluid or spirit present in sensory activities and nerve endings in the brain that resulting in mass psychological phenomena like manias or hysterias.

Animal spirits also appeared in literary culture, where they referred to states of physical courage, gaiety, and exuberance. The literary meaning implies that animal spirits can be high or low depending on an individual’s degree of health and energy.

Animal Spirits in Finance and Economics

Today in finance, the term animal spirits arise in market psychology and behavioral economics. Animal spirits represent the emotions of confidence, hope, fear, and pessimism that can affect financial decision-making, which in turn can fuel or hamper economic growth. If spirits are low, then confidence levels will be low, which will drive down a promising market—even if the market or economy fundamentals are strong. Likewise, if spirits are high, confidence among participants in the economy will be high, and market prices will soar.

The Role of Emotion in Business Decisions

According to the theory behind animal spirits, the decisions of business leaders are based on intuition and the behavior of their competitors rather than on solid analysis. Keynes understood that in times of economic upheaval, irrational thoughts might influence people as they pursue their financial self-interests.

Keynes further posited in The General Theory that trying to estimate the future yield of various industries, companies, or activities using general knowledge and available insight “amounts to little and sometimes to nothing.” He proposed that the only way people can make decisions in an uncertain environment is if animal spirits guide them.

Animal Spirits Enter the 21st Century

In 2009, the term animal spirits returned to popularity when two economists—George A. Akerlof (Nobel laureate and professor of economics at University of California) and Robert J. Shiller (professor of economics at Yale University)—published their book, Animal Spirits: How Human Psychology Drives the Economy, and Why it Matters for Global Capitalism.

Here, the authors argue that although animal spirits are important, it is equally important that the government actively intervene to control them—via economic policymaking—when necessary. Otherwise, the authors postulate, the spirits might follow their own devices—that is, capitalism could get out of hand, and result in the kind of overindulgence that we saw in the 2008 financial crisis.

Examples of Animal Spirits

The Dotcom Bubble

Animal spirits often manifest as market psychology defined by either fear or greed. For the latter, the term “irrational exuberance” has been used to describe investor enthusiasm that drives asset prices far higher than those assets’ fundamentals justify. Simply tacking on “dotcom” to the name of a company increased its market value to extraordinary levels, with startups showing zero earnings commanding ever-higher share prices.

The crash that followed saw the Nasdaq index, which had risen five-fold between 1995 and 2000, tumble from a peak of 5,048.62 on March 10, 2000, to 1,139.90 on Oct 4, 2002, a 76.81% fall. By the end of 2001, most dot-com stocks had gone bust.

The Great Recession

Another example was the lead-up to the 2008-09 financial crisis and the Great Recession, when the markets were rife with financial innovations. Creative use of both new and existing financial products—like collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)—abounded, particularly in the housing market. Initially, this trend was thought to be positive, that is until the new financial instruments were found to be deceptive and fraudulent. At this point, investor confidence plummeted, a sell-off ensued, and the markets plunged. A clear case of animal spirits run amok.

Critiques of Animal Spirits

“Animal spirits” refers to the tendency for investment prices to rise and fall based on human emotion rather than intrinsic value. This theory, however, has been critiqued by some economists who argue that markets are nonetheless efficient and that individual irrationality washes out in the aggregate. The animal spirits thesis, like behavioral economics, essentially throws a monkey wrench into the assumptions of efficiency and rationality.

Other critics argue that bubbles are not the result of mass psychology, but are due to the over-involvement of central banks and too much regulation, which stymie economic growth and throw markets out of equilibrium. These arguments often stem from Austrian economic theory or libertarianism that asserts that large increases in the money supply (“printed” by governments) are the cause of bubbles and their ultimate demise by encouraging malinvestment.

What Is Attribution Analysis?

Attribution analysis is a sophisticated method for evaluating the performance of a portfolio or fund manager. Also known as “return attribution” or “performance attribution,” it attempts to quantitatively analyze aspects of an active fund manager’s investment selections and decisions—and to identify sources of excess returns, especially as compared to an index or other benchmark.

For portfolio managers and investment firms, attribution analysis can be an effective tool to assess strategies. For investors, attribution analysis works as a way to assess the performance of fund or money managers.

How Attribution Analysis Works

Attribution analysis focuses on three factors: the manager’s investment picks and asset allocation, their investment style, and the market timing of their decisions and trades.

The method begins by identifying the asset class in which a fund manager chooses to invest. An asset class generally describes the type of investments that a manager chooses; within that, it can also get more specific, describing a geographical marketplace in which they originate and/or an industry sector. European fixed income debt or U.S. technology equities could both be examples.

Then, there is the allocation of the different assets—that is, what percentage of the portfolio is weighted to specific segments, sectors, or industries. 

Specifying the type of assets will help identify a general benchmark for the comparison of performance. Often, this benchmark will take the form of a market index, a basket of comparable assets.

Analyzing Investment Style

The next step in attribution analysis is to determine the manager’s investment style. Like the class identification discussed above, a style will provide a benchmark against which to gauge the manager’s performance.

The first method of style analysis concentrates on the nature of the manager’s holdings. If they are equities, for example, are they the stocks of large-cap or small-cap companies? Value- or growth-oriented?

American economist Bill Sharpe introduced the second type of style analysis in 1988. Returns-based style analysis (RBSA) charts a fund’s returns and seeks an index with comparable performance history. Sharpe refined this method with a technique that he called quadratic optimization, which allowed him to assign a blend of indices that correlated most closely to a manager’s returns.

Explaining Alpha

Once an attribution analyst identifies that blend, they can formulate a customized benchmark of returns against which they can evaluate the manager’s performance. Such an analysis should shine a light on the excess returns, or alpha, that the manager enjoys over those benchmarks.

The next step in attribution analysis attempts to explain that alpha. Is it due to the manager’s stock picks, selection of sectors, or market timing? To determine the alpha generated by their stock picks, an analyst must identify and subtract the portion of the alpha attributable to sector and timing. Again, this can be done by developing customize benchmarks based on the manager’s selected blend of sectors and the timing of their trades. If the alpha of the fund is 13%, it is possible to assign a certain slice of that 13% to sector selection and timing of entry and exit from those sectors. The remainder will be stock selection alpha.

Market Timing and Attribution Analysis

Though some managers employ a buy-and-hold strategy, most are constantly trading, making buy and sell decisions throughout a given period. Segmenting returns by activity can be useful, telling you if a manager’s decisions to add or subtract positions from the portfolio helped or hurt the final return—vis-à-vis a more passive buy-and-hold approach.

Enter market timing, the third big factor that goes into attribution analysis. A fair amount of debate exists on its importance, though.

Certainly, this is the most difficult part of attribute analysis to put into quantitative terms. To the extent that market timing can be measured, scholars point out the importance of gauging a manager’s returns against benchmarks reflective of upturns and downturns. Ideally, the fund will go up in bullish times and will decline less than the market in bearish periods.

Even so, some scholars note that a significant portion of a manager’s performance with respect to timing is random, or luck. As a result, in general, most analysts attribute less significance to market timing than asset selection and investment style.