activist investors, catalyst, Charlie Munger, growth investing, Howard Marks, intrinsic value, latticework of mental models, mosaic theory, recapitalization, second-level thinking, shareholder activism, value investing, Warren Buffett
I’m obviously not averse to some growth – well, if I can buy it bloody cheap, or free – but I don’t think anybody would dream of calling me a growth investor!? But you may be surprised to hear I don’t consider myself a classic value investor either. Ideally (at least in relation to some investments), I like to think of myself as an activist investor.
In this instance, let me hasten to re-define activist in the v broadest sense: Activist investing isn’t necessarily about public engagement with a company’s management – far from it, in many cases. I believe the essence of activist investing actually lies in the investment analysis & the investment itself – not the investor (as many would presume). An activist looks at a company and, on that rare occasion, sees a v different enterprise vs. the company (most) other investors currently see…
– Perhaps he sees a company that’s genuinely worth more dead than alive. Or one that would be far more valuable in the arms of a larger rival. Or a company that has a jewel in the crown that’s obscured by other/inferior divisions, central costs, etc.
– Maybe it’s a company that has under-utilized assets that can be sold to reduce/eliminate excessive debt. Or a company that could execute a recapitalization, and transform its financial metrics & shareholder value.
– Perhaps it’s simply misunderstood – investors may simply not grasp a company’s management/business/strategy have changed in a major way, or they under/over-estimate the potential impact (for example) of some litigation or regulatory action.