His only experience in running a chemical-type company was Avery from 1984 until 1992 and the results weren't too impressive. In early January of 1984, Avery stock was around $6.50 while at the end of 1992, it was around $13.88. While a 214% gain seems impressive, the S & P 500 rose 260% during that same time frame. Meaning he couldn't even keep pace with the general market. I think Peltz would call that underperformance, but he still thinks he has great advice on how to run DuPont.
Again, I don't follow DuPont's business performance too closely and maybe they do deserve to improve, but I really am bothered by this activist investor approach. If you own stock in a company that is stinking up the joint, then you may try and hype it up some in order to get the price to rise. But the activist investors aren't hyping up DuPont. They are trashing it in about every way possible. All of which raises this question:
"If the company is really that badly off, then why would anyone ever buy up such a large share of it?"
[*] Dupontcanbegreat.com? Couldn't someone have spent more than a few seconds coming up with that grade-school level name? And these guys think they have great advice on how to run the company?