Tech’s love-hate relationship with activist investors is headed toward an awkward end

An SEC rule proposal would help tech companies pursue more speculative investments — potentially to their own detriment.

SEC headquarters in Washington

The SEC proposal would require activist investors to disclose a position of over 5% equity within five days, half the current 10-day disclosure period.

Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

The SEC is proposing a rule change that would make it easier for tech companies to ward off activist investors. While tech executives may welcome the proposal, some investors worry that it will allow corporate mismanagement to fester. On the flip side, the change could give tech executives greater leeway to pursue so-called “moonshot” projects that have more speculative upside and often draw criticism from hard-nosed investors.

The SEC proposal would require activist investors to disclose a position of over 5% equity within five days, half the current 10-day disclosure period. The change is intended to reduce information asymmetries that can give some investors an unfair advantage. The SEC introduced the rule in February and is now observing a 60-day comment period. Democratic SEC commissioners, who currently hold a 3-1 majority, favor the proposal.

Five fewer days might not seem like such a big deal, but for activist investors, it can be the difference between profit and loss. Activist investors typically try to establish a sizable equity position before announcing to the world — and the company itself — that they intend to steer the targeted firm in a new direction.

Once an activist investor makes a public disclosure, the targeted firm’s stock price typically jumps (assuming markets agree with the activist’s thesis). For example, Twitter’s stock jumped nearly 8% after Elliott Management revealed that it had accumulated a stake with the intent of removing then-CEO Jack Dorsey.

The timing of a price jump is important because it increases the cost of purchasing more equity. Higher costs mean lower profit, and that can make activist investing less attractive in the first place.

“This is a sad day for many American businesses, which need to replace incompetent chief executives rather than entrench them,” Carl Icahn said of the rule proposal. According to Icahn, the rule change would particularly hurt investors that rely on outside funds to fuel their campaigns.

Republican SEC commissioner Hester Peirce likewise felt the new rules could harm rather than help markets. “Information asymmetries in this sense — where investors have equal access to disclosure from the issuer and insiders, but come to different conclusions about the long term prospects of a company based on their respective due diligence — are a feature, not a bug, of our capital markets,” Peirce wrote in a dissenting statement.

Some research backs up these assertions. For instance, a prominent 2014 research paper concluded that firms targeted by activist investors become better innovators in the five years following an intervention. This improvement came despite a drop in R&D expenditures at most targeted firms during that time. The researchers considered several plausible explanations, including that the firms became more focused on their core expertise, that they had better aligned incentives and that they more efficiently allocated innovative resources (e.g., patents and innovators).

Regardless of this theoretical upside, it’s safe to say no tech CEO wants to hear that an activist investor is targeting their firm. The industry is littered with instances of contentious battles between activists and executives. In 2013, for example, Icahn took an activist stake in Apple, pressuring the company to use its cash troves to pay dividends. Icahn also pressured eBay to spin PayPal off into an independent company. And before Elliot Management attempted to show Jack Dorsey the door at Twitter, ValueAct Capital helped oust Steve Ballmer from Microsoft.

These cases raise the larger question of whether activist investing needs to be so hostile in the first place. Could investors benefit from communicating with the target company earlier in the process? Would the companies even be receptive to outside guidance that isn’t backed up by the threat of a boardroom proxy battle?

“I think the [targeted] company would also say that their ability to talk to investors and to provide more context or disclosure and not have the information be one-sided or incomplete is also — from their perspective — a benefit to their shareholders,” Elizabeth Bieber, counsel and head of shareholder engagement and activism defense at Freshfields, told Protocol.

Bieber added that the existing 10-day period “does not sound like a long period of time, but is in this world.” As Bieber sees it, the 10-day period allows the activist investor to be “working in the market and the company to be in the dark until a point significantly in the future, when it is really hard to kind of catch up and to speak to their stakeholders and to sometimes correct misinformation.”

One realm in which tech companies often struggle to communicate with investors is “moonshot” investments. Any given moonshot is unlikely to pan out on its own, but the upside of even one success can theoretically be worth the effort.

Google popularized the idea of the moonshot, and Facebook has followed in its footsteps with recent metaverse activity. Moonshots often work to imbue these gigantic tech firms with an aura of innovation, but in truth, most of their revenue growth has come from either their core businesses or from more predictable growth areas, such as cloud computing. The Big Tech moonshots that have generated a lot of buzz — internet balloons and virtual reality, for instance — have struggled to move the revenue needle.

Peter Cohan, a senior lecturer of strategy at Babson College, said if major companies were more focused on financial discipline, they wouldn’t invest resources in these moonshot projects. “A lot of these companies basically entrenched the founders after the company went public and they could basically do whatever they wanted,” said Cohan. He pointed to Google as an example, claiming the company hasn’t really diversified from its core advertising business, “which is so lucrative and growing so fast that it almost doesn’t matter.” Still, Cohan said, there’s a case to be made Google would be even more profitable without the moonshot activity.

Should the SEC ruling go into effect, it would likely matter more for the next generation of tech companies rather than the current giants. Given the trillion-dollar market caps of Big Tech, investors would have a hard time accruing a position of greater than 5% equity. Will the new rules make it easier for younger tech firms to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors? Maybe. But it’s not going to be easy convincing firms of that when their predecessors are so dominant and successful. Activist investors may still have a point, but it’s so subtle — and relies on so many what-ifs — that they will have a hard time ever saying, “Told you so.”


This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

Why companies cut staff after raising millions

Are tech firms blowing millions in funding just weeks after getting it? Experts say it's more complicated than that.

Bolt, Trade Republic, HomeLight, and Stord all drew attention from funding announcements that happened just weeks or days before layoffs.

Photo: Pulp Photography/Getty Images

Fintech startup Bolt was one of the first tech companies to slash jobs, cutting 250 employees, or a third of its staff, in May. For some workers, the pain of layoffs was a shock not only because they were the first, but also because the cuts came just four months after Bolt had announced a $355 million series E funding round and achieved a peak valuation of $11 billion.

“Bolt employees were blind sided because the CEO was saying just weeks ago how everything is fine,” an anonymous user wrote on the message board Blind. “It has been an extremely rough day for 1/3 of Bolt employees,” another user posted. “Sadly, I was one of them who was let go after getting a pay-raise just a couple of weeks ago.”

Keep Reading Show less
Nat Rubio-Licht

Nat Rubio-Licht is a Los Angeles-based news writer at Protocol. They graduated from Syracuse University with a degree in newspaper and online journalism in May 2020. Prior to joining the team, they worked at the Los Angeles Business Journal as a technology and aerospace reporter.


The fight to define the carbon offset market's future

The world’s largest carbon offset issuer is fighting a voluntary effort to standardize the industry. And the fate of the climate could hang in the balance.

It has become increasingly clear that scaling the credit market will first require clear standards and transparency.

Kevin Frayer/Getty Images

There’s a major fight brewing over what kind of standards will govern the carbon offset market.

A group of independent experts looking to clean up the market’s checkered record and the biggest carbon credit issuer on the voluntary market is trying to influence efforts to define what counts as a quality credit. The outcome could make or break an industry increasingly central to tech companies meeting their net zero goals.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).


White House AI Bill of Rights lacks specific guidance for AI rules

The document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is long on tech guidance, but short on restrictions for AI.

While the document provides extensive suggestions for how to incorporate AI rights in technical design, it does not include any recommendations for restrictions on the use of controversial forms of AI.

Photo: Ana Lanza/Unsplash

It was a year in the making, but people eagerly anticipating the White House Bill of Rights for AI will have to continue waiting for concrete recommendations for future AI policy or restrictions.

Instead, the document unveiled today by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is legally non-binding and intended to be used as a handbook and a “guide for society” that could someday inform government AI legislation or regulations.

Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights features a list of five guidelines for protecting people in relation to AI use:

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories