IR Monitor – 15 April 2026

In this week’s newsletter:

The stories that investor relations professionals need to read this week:

• Dealmaker FOMO Is a serious threat to share prices warns Bloomberg. Investors are sceptical of deals that increase leverage, change strategy or involve a large integration
• Do companies that stack the vote do worse? The WSJ on dual-class voting structures
• ESG and DEI are still important considerations for investors: ignoring material risk Is the real fiduciary failure, shares Forbes
• Index providers should not bend the rules for Elon Musk: they will only expose ordinary investors to unnecessary risks, argues The Economist
• Singapore IPO hopefuls on the fence now as they await resolution of Middle East war. Ten companies listed on the SGX in the past six months, reports the Business Times
• And finally … FTI’s Ed Bridges has some questions about consensus management

This week’s news

Dealmaker FOMO Is a serious threat to share prices warns Bloomberg

Dealmaking may seem like an enticing strategy for companies wanting to keep up with Q1’s strong M&A momentum however Bloomberg warns leaders should be wary of major decisions driven simply by Fear of Missing Out. A closer look at recent deals reveals investors are unlikely to share the optimism of deal-obsessed executives, which is reflected in the consistent share price falls following deal announcements. Whilst companies have been drawn to M&A due to the potential to rapidly scale growth and achieve longer-term synergies, such deals worry investors who are more focused on debt levels, cultural integration and drastic changes to strategy. Confidence is especially weak for companies involved in deals where one or both parties have a poor or limited track record for similar deals, are actively involved in public controversy, or are struggling.

Do companies that stack the vote do worse? WSJ on dual-class voting 

The Wall Street Journal evaluates the success of dual-class voting structures, which can give founders of public companies much greater voting power than other investors. Research suggests IPOs using dual-class structures bring better average returns for shareholders over a three-year period compared to run-of-the-mill single-class share structures. Hugely successful companies such as Alphabet, Meta and Berkshire Hathaway have all used these structures, limiting outside investor influence and allowing founders to implement bold strategies. But Alphabet, Meta and Berkshire Hathaway are in a league of their own and the bold moves paid off. In many cases, companies with dual-class structure have failed and it begs the question – could the value destruction have been prevented if outside shareholders had been able to exert pressure by voting?  

ESG and DEI are still important considerations for investors

Recent pressure over the past year against environmental, social and governance (ESG) and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) considerations is a threat to sensible financial practice, argues Tynesia Boyea-Robinson (President & CEO of CapEQ) in a guest editorial for Forbes. She argues that a company’s fiduciary duty requires “identifying, assessing and managing all material risks to a business’s future.” This includes ESG and DEI considerations, which are business fundamentals – e.g. prevention of discrimination, climate change mitigation, supply chain resilience, governance, etc – with direct financial consequences. When it’s framed that way, it’s easy to see why 87% of institutional investors still regard ESG and DEI as important indicators of financial risk.

Index providers should not bend the rules for Elon Musk

Index rules are being reshaped to accommodate high-profile issuers, raising questions about whether market integrity and the appeal of passive investing are being ruined in the process. According to The Economist, Nasdaq and FTSE are considering significant changes to woo “starry companies.” This includes Nasdaq cutting its “seasoning” period from three months to 15 trading days (with FTSE proposing an even shorter window of five days). The concern is that those first few days are extremely volatile and could lead to insiders quickly selling down their stakes, which could lead retail investors holding the bag. Another consideration being explored is lowering the  free-float requirements, which could lead to over-valued share prices when index-tracking funds top up. Ultimately, these changes may benefit the few and reduce trust in the markets.

Singapore IPO players on the fence

Singapore’s IPO market has rebounded though uneven performance and geopolitical uncertainty are shaping a more cautious outlook. The Business Times reports that 10 companies listed on the Singapore Exchange in the six months to 31 March 2026, more than double the prior year. However, post-IPO returns have been mixed, since “pristine balance sheets currently outweigh sector hype.” Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation’s Carmen Lee (head of equity research) noted some issuers are taking a “wait-and-see approach for better market pricing and demand.” That said, the IPO pipeline in Singapore is healthy and is dominated by companies in the digital economy and energy transition sectors as well as REITs.

And finally … some serious questions about consensus management

What’s the point of managing consensus? In a LinkedIn post, FTI’s very own Ed Bridges argues that a tightly managed consensus is not as beneficial as it seems. Sure, a “sell” recommendation isn’t something to usually celebrate but it’s actually not as existential as some might think: having a wide range of forecasts and different recommendations can lead to more liquidity.  Ed ends with a banger of a question: “Is a tight range of forecasts and no “sell” recommendations simply an attractive goal because it easily defines success?  Or is it setting up the business’ equity story, management team and rating for failure?” More musings from Ed to come.