[flagged]
I have never seen this actually happen in practice.
It's always specific teams and projects that get fired because some C-Level fucked up and pushed for some ego project, or over-hired and placed those poor souls in useless projects.
I have. Multiple times.
Does worker happiness matter at all, or is it OK to have a net miserable company where the bottom line is slightly higher profit than it would otherwise have been if the environment were a pleasant place to work? Because that’s the tradeoff here; rabid billionaire investors are unhappy because numbers aren’t as high as they could be.
Whoever is funding these activist investors, probably a nation/state, is doing it on purpose. Natasha Lamb has to be the dumbest investors to ever live, next to Cathie Wood, IMO. You could invest in an S&P index fund and perform better at 264% for the past 11 years, compared to her 132% realized, and taking far less risk.
I get everyone has their idealistic views of how the world should work, but capitalism dominates every other society, providing better living standards, and security. It is unfortunate we have had leftists in the Democratic party take control of it, and pushing some very strange agendas, that doesn't reflect reality. These strange agendas have been exploited by other nations, like China.
Some activist investors have brought better function management and boards. Carl Icahn is a great example. But he has also brought his fair share of problems.