Share this post via:

Elliott Management has again called on Duke Energy to review its portfolio, saying investors are dissatisfied with the utility’s performance and would like to see the leadership team come forward with a roadmap to boost value but the energy provider disagrees with the idea of an “illogical” split.

In late May, Elliott urged Duke to consider splitting into three geographic utilities – the Carolinas, Florida, and the Midwest – arguing the former two are “undermanaged and undervalued” and would perform better independently.

Duke rejected the idea, defending its strategy and track record, which Elliott believes was “a hostile and aggressive” response that has failed to soothe investors and raised more concerns with its shareholder base about the ability of the current team to manage the business as it is currently structured.

Elliott said in a Monday open letter that over the past months it has reached out to other Duke shareholders for opinions on ways to improve value.

“The feedback we have received has reinforced our conviction that there is clear support for new board-level perspectives and a full business review,” said the activist, which calls itself “one of Duke’s largest investors.”

The activist noted that Duke’s earnings per share have grown by about 2% annually since 2013 despite management’s guidance of a growth of 4% to 6% over this period. Elliott contended that executional failures have caused Duke’s stock to underperform peers.

“This underperformance has translated into real consequences for shareholders — had Duke just performed in-line with these averages, it would have created $10 billion to $30 billion of additional shareholder value,” the letter penned by Elliott Managing Partner Jesse Cohn and Senior Portfolio Manager Jeff Rosenbaum reads.

In response to Elliott’s letter, Duke said “Elliott has again failed to provide any concrete and specific ideas to increase shareholder value, choosing instead to launch public attacks supported by cherry-picked data and anonymous sources.”

The energy provider called the suggestion to break in to three “complex” and “illogical.” Duke accused Elliott’s proposal of being “financially unsound and ran counter to the strategic direction of the entire industry.”

Duke also noted that there was a near “universal” rejection of the hedge fund’s “unsound plan” when discussing it with large investors, analysts, public officials, and other stakeholders.

Elliott wants Duke to increase the independence of its board and suggested the replacement of lead independent director Michael Browning, who has sat on Duke’s board since 2016. The hedge fund also wants to see management provide “updated targets and commitments” for its operations in Florida and accelerate growth in Indiana.

Elliott criticized the company’s compensation scheme, deeming it “excessive” and saying it has “rewarded poor outcomes” and led to “misalignment of interests with shareholders.”

The activist argued that while there may be other avenues to create value for shareholders, its previous proposal for a breakup is the “fastest, clearest and highest confidence path to high grade” the company’s businesses.

A three-way split “will create a structure where Duke’s utilities can thrive from greater operational focus, improved execution, lower cost of capital and increased capital investment in critical infrastructure,” Elliott said on its dedicated campaign website.

Duke’s “management and the board have consistently struggled to deliver value from the current large, sprawling, non-contiguous collection of businesses, which is continuing to drive concerns around Duke’s ability to achieve consistent results over the long term,” said Elliott on Monday.

Shares in Duke were down 1.55% at $103.14 as of 1:00 p.m. EDT Monday.