Yea, this is a confusing rabbit hole, I get it. So, there needs to be some clarification on the difference between Activist investing and Investor Activism.

You see, Activist Investing is all about investing, and making money from your investment.

Investor Activism, is using your investments as a leverage to make your vested company perform some action or activity, hence the Activism focus.

So Investor Activism is using your shares to vote or using your money investment to put a vice grip around a Company’s CEO (or Board’s) Balls to make decisions in your favor.

Did this get confusing yet, or do I have to actively invest more time in vesting your interest actively investing activism activities. Yes.

Undoubtedly, both are going to be one in the same if you own an appreciable amount of shares. So your decision and power, or clout, will help forge future decisions in your company. It’s all semantics really, and semantics is basically stupid if you’re filthy fucking rich.

Activist Investing doesn’t require many shares to make profit. But Investor Activism requires a considerable amount of shares or power in order for your words or interests to be taken seriously. And that’s also a proportionate thing, so the more shares you own, the more power behind your voice exists.

In a Money Economy, it’s all a radical democracy where each dollar or share is a vote.

Investor Activism can be performed by single individuals with high bankrolls, or by venture capitalists, hedge funds, or other investment capital business. If you can call the shots for the investment capital, whether through you or proxy of an investment company, than you can leverage that vested funds and vested interests.

Point is, own big part of pie, get to do stuff with pie. Simple.

What’s the point of Investor Activism?

Mainly to get more money. Why else? Are you driven by boring political idealogues and view the world through a narrow lens of ‘values’? Fuck that, you can’t eat values for dinner.

Naww, tendies mother fucker.

So the major reason why Investors leverage their shares in activism is to vote for scenarios or conditions to maximize profit. You want your money making more money for you, or else why the fuck would you invest? Because you believe in the Company or the CEO? Like a Dream? What is this, Tesla?

Who gives a shit, make more money. Why attribute anything to Malice that which can be properly attributed to Greed? Hanlon’s Money Razor.

Bottom line, Investor Activism is ultimately to make more money, if it happens to make the world a better place, then that’s just extra.

Examples of Investor Activism

This is a hypothetical example, let’s say you owned X shares of BIG OIL company and you find out that some NEW OIL company is making some break through stuff. If you buy your way in to the board of the NEW OIL company, you can possibly start hinting towards a merger between BIG OIL and NEW OIL.

The technology or whatever could be sold, licensed, traded, or acquired by BIG OIL giving NEW OIL more money. BIG OIL benefits with newer shit. You benefit because both companies are more profitable, and generally speaking, a merger tends to make shares go up.

So you profited from both sides, it’s like jerking yourself off but with money.

It’s a Beautiful Thing.

Another possible thing

Let’s say you own 20% of shares in company Get Wreckt, and you don’t like the face of the current CEO. He/She/Xer/Zir/Alien/Ghost/Twink’s shoulders looks weak and you just don’t like their hairstyle or they’re being too controversial, or not controversial enough. Well, here’s where you make a monetary threat to pull out of the company behind closed doors. Urging the Company to play a game of musical chairs with the CEO at the next board meeting. Why? Because you can, asshole, duh!

Depending on who you put in charge, you could make shares go up or down. Generally speaking, losing a CEO is a bad thing.

But also generally speaking, a shitty CEO that has a track record of breaking bank at other companies, is a shitty CEO worth losing.

In theory you could then hire a more industry relevant and technical CEO. In theory this would be better in the long run and the image would be somewhat saved while potentially squeezing out more money.

By the way, you ever realize how fucking stupid financial CEOs tend to be? They tend to penny pinch and miss millions, while performing a whole bunch of quasi ‘downsizing’ bullshit. Like they want to ‘restructure’ what works. You know what else restructures? A Failed Bankrupt Company. They literally get meat puppeted by creditors to restructure themselves.

Don’t worry, if you’re reading this, you’re not a financial CEO. Trust me.

This rant was definitely not inspired by some relevant fortune 100 company recently switching CEOs. Definitely not.

Another Possible Thang

Investor Activism could be used to hurt a company, and make the competition more profitable.

Why would you actively try to sink a company?

Well, it’s elementary my Dear Watson, it’s because you also invested in the competition.

So, you know, you’re just hedging your bets and you decide that you want one company to do better.

Look, Investor Activism doesn’t have to make the company your investing in more money. It just has to make you more money. So as long as you somehow gain from being a douche, then there is a will.

And if there is a will, there is a way.

In Closing

I got bored of writing and I don’t care to make any more jokes.

So, just kick a rock and break your leg or something.

When I mean rock, like, a boulder. It’s going to be rather hard to break your leg on a pebble. . .

Also, it’s illegal to offer medical advice, because that’s PrACtiCiNG MeDiCinE or some bull shit money-racket-liability-scheme funded by corporate interests to prevent a unified society or something. Maybe it’s the lizard people, look, I don’t know.

Who cares, we all die in the end. It’s not like there’s a “safe bet” or something.

cheers,

*Not Valid Financial Legal, Life, or Any Advice