| Key Points: – Elliott Management holds a major stake in Honeywell, urging a split into Aerospace and Automation segments. – Elliott projects a 75% stock price boost within two years if Honeywell proceeds with the split. – Reflecting a broader trend, Elliott argues for simplification to enhance focus and unlock value. |
Activist investor Elliott Management has acquired a $5 billion stake in Honeywell International and is calling for the industrial conglomerate to split into two separate companies. Elliott’s proposal would see Honeywell divide along its two main business lines: Aerospace, which supplies critical technology to military and commercial clients, and Automation, a major supplier of sensors and control systems for industrial applications. Elliott’s managing partner, Jesse Cohn, and partner Marc Steinberg believe that a breakup would unlock significant shareholder value, projecting a 75% increase in Honeywell’s stock price within two years if their recommendations are followed.
In a letter addressed to Honeywell’s board, Cohn and Steinberg argue that the company’s current conglomerate structure has become a drag on its growth. They point to underperformance since 2019, attributing it to an unwieldy corporate structure and ineffective investor communication. Elliott, however, did not direct criticism at Honeywell’s CEO, Vimal Kapur, who took the reins in 2023 and has pursued an aggressive M&A strategy to enhance Honeywell’s portfolio. Nevertheless, Elliott contends that Honeywell would achieve better performance by focusing on core areas, which could be achieved more effectively through a separation.
Honeywell’s Aerospace division, which Elliott calls the company’s “crown jewel,” has been a consistent source of revenue, yet has received only 10% of the M&A investment allocated by Honeywell in the past 20 years. Elliott suggests that by reallocating resources and focusing exclusively on high-performing units, both Aerospace and Automation could realize their full potential independently. Additionally, Elliott argues that Honeywell’s back-office operations—such as legal, IT, and HR—are largely divided between the two units, making a split more feasible than in typical conglomerates.
Honeywell responded to Elliott’s recommendations by stating its openness to shareholder perspectives and welcoming further engagement with the activist investor. Despite this, Honeywell’s board was reportedly unaware of Elliott’s involvement prior to the public release of the letter. In keeping with its careful approach to activism, Elliott consulted extensively with industry experts and former employees to understand the company’s operational and strategic options, even enlisting investment bankers and consultants to aid in its analysis.
Elliott’s push for a breakup reflects a growing trend across industrial conglomerates, many of which have embraced separations in recent years. General Electric, for example, completed a long-awaited division into distinct units, which has driven significant stock gains in 2024. Similarly, 3M and Johnson Controls have shed divisions in favor of streamlined operations. Elliott argues that such moves allow companies to focus on core competencies, attract dedicated investor interest, and ultimately improve shareholder value—a transformation it believes Honeywell would benefit from.
Elliott’s recommendation proposes that the split would yield two businesses each valued at over $100 billion if taken public independently. They also suggest that Honeywell divest some additional non-core segments, such as its personal protective equipment and Advanced Materials units, a step Kapur has already considered. Cohn and Steinberg emphasized that their proposed path for Honeywell is not unprecedented, pointing out that investor sentiment has moved away from conglomerates in favor of more focused companies.
As Honeywell’s board weighs Elliott’s recommendations, the company’s future remains uncertain, but Elliott’s pressure may catalyze significant changes to its longstanding structure. With this move, Elliott hopes to add Honeywell to its track record of successful activist campaigns, having previously advocated for similar strategic breakups in companies like Marathon Petroleum and Alcoa.
