Witchhollow .. I strongly believe that most shareholders, and most particularly institutional ones, think of themselves as "investors in" rather than "owners of" the companies in which they own shares. If they lose faith in the management of one or more of those companies to produce superior results they remove some or all of the shares of that company from their portfolios and replace them with the shares of companies managed by individuals who they believe will produce above average success. That doesn't mean in any way that they are in 100% agreement with the actions and/or inactions of the managements of the companies in which they own shares. It simply means that they have concluded that they can produce superior investment results by focusing exclusively on managing their portfolios rather than spending time attempting to influence the activities and or management compensation of the companies that comprise their portfolios. It is not surprising, therefore, that those investors who feel this way (and as you and I do) consider most attempts at shareholder activism to be an obstacle to, rather than a catalyst for, maximum success.
Having said that, everyone has a right to manage their money whatever way they want to. Some on this board have chosen to "bet the farm" on IDCC. They have every right to do that. It is not surprising that they feel the need to scrutinize and attempt to influence the management and governance of the company and that is their right also.
Regards,
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
