The majority of investors labelled as activists participate in only a handful of campaigns, while a small group of highly active firms generates the strongest outcomes for shareholders, according to a report by the Financial Times citing new research from JPMorgan.
Analysing activist campaigns globally between 2018 and 2026, JPMorgan found that activism remains heavily concentrated among a limited number of specialist firms. Around 70% of activists were involved in just one campaign during the period, while more than four-fifths participated in no more than two campaigns. By contrast, only a small minority conducted activist engagements on a consistent basis.
According to the report, this core group of repeat activists has delivered significantly better results than less involved participants. Campaigns led by investors involved in at least 10 activist situations since 2018 generated approximately 9% more alpha over one- and two-year periods than campaigns launched by less active peers.
The findings suggest that activist investing remains a specialist discipline in which experience, credibility and execution matter more than simply taking a stake in an underperforming company.
While the announcement of a new activist position often triggers an immediate share-price reaction, JPMorgan found that the broader performance benefits tend to fade over time. In many cases, the initial outperformance generated by activist involvement had largely disappeared within a year.
However, campaigns led by established activist firms proved more durable, with returns remaining positive over longer periods. The report attributes this advantage to the ability of experienced activists to exert greater pressure on management teams and boards, particularly when they possess the resources and reputation to pursue proxy contests or public campaigns if necessary.
The research also highlights how activist objectives have evolved. Historically, campaigns often focused on operational underperformance and governance shortcomings. Today, activists are increasingly targeting companies that appear undervalued relative to peers and possess balance sheets capable of supporting enhanced shareholder returns.
Strategic reviews and capital allocation initiatives have become among the most common activist demands, while operational and governance-focused campaigns have become less prominent.
Despite the visibility of activist campaigns, the study found that complete success remains relatively rare. Only 37% of campaigns achieved all of their stated objectives.
Moreover, not all activist victories translated into positive shareholder outcomes. Measures frequently cited as signs of activist success, including board representation and executive leadership changes, were not consistently associated with superior long-term returns. In some cases, campaigns resulting in chief executive departures or broad strategic reviews were linked to negative alpha over subsequent one- and two-year periods.
By contrast, actions aimed at increasing shareholder distributions, including dividends and share buybacks, produced the strongest performance outcomes. Takeover activity also generated favourable returns, although JPMorgan noted that it can be difficult to isolate the activist’s influence from broader acquisition interest.
The report argues that successful activism is less about improving operational performance and more about influencing capital allocation decisions. Companies targeted by activists often experience operational disruption during campaigns, which can weigh on measures such as revenue growth and returns on invested capital.
JPMorgan also observed a notable difference between experienced and occasional activists in terms of lasting impact. Companies targeted by less-established activists frequently reverted to pre-campaign dividend policies within two years, suggesting management teams often make limited concessions designed to resolve disputes without implementing deeper changes.
The study further notes a growing shift toward private activism, with investors increasingly engaging behind the scenes rather than launching public campaigns. While the number of activist situations recorded globally has remained relatively stable in recent years, a greater proportion of engagements now take place away from public scrutiny.
This trend has made it increasingly difficult to distinguish between genuine activist campaigns and routine shareholder engagement. As a result, the line between activism and conventional investor dialogue is becoming progressively less clear, raising questions about how activist activity should be measured and interpreted going forward.
