But looking beyond the scoreboard, what's notable is that many observers are still looking at BHP's decisions through the prism of Elliott's demands.

That is patently unfair. Many changes, such as the choice of a new chairman, the decision to put its Jansen potash project on the back-burner and the decision to sell shale, had been in progress well before Elliott emerged.

That said, there is certainly an argument that Elliott's campaign has made BHP a faster, more focused company that is also more transparent.

Fresh approach

One of the earlier more cathartic results of the Elliott intervention was that it helped emphasise the importance of the long and detailed investor listening tour by new chairman Ken MacKenzie.

Ken MacKenzie and Andrew Mackenzie have formed a strong team. BHP

While such ventures are a regular occurrence with the appointment of a new chair, fund managers raved about MacKenzie's approach, and his willingness to not only share ideas but genuinely take in those of the market.

Institutional investors didn't waste their opportunity to tell MacKenzie about everything from capital allocation to portfolio management. Governance was also a focus, and a number protested the appointment of former Origin director Grant King to the board; the message was received loud and clear, and King withdrew.


A smaller example of BHP's heightened transparency was provided in March, when chief financial officer Peter Beaven hosted an online forum for retail shareholders.

This push to reach the mums and dads on the register is good governance and perhaps would have happened without Elliott's appearance. But there's little doubt it helped BHP remind the activist and the broader market that its massive retail shareholder base is also important.

Paul Singer's Elliott Management was focusing on BHP's dual-listed structure. Bloomberg

The key response to Elliott came in August of 2017, when Andrew Mackenzie delivered a five-fold increase in net profit to $US6.7 billion ($8.7 billion) and pushed the button on the sale of its controversial shale division, which had eaten over $US20 billion in capital.

To be clear, exiting shale was a goal held by Mackenzie and Beaven for some time; the question was how to extract the best price from the sale, such that BHP didn't compound the mistakes of its original investment on the way out. A steady rise in the oil prices, and the growing hunger of oil major to shale assets, meant that the time was right.

Similarly, on potash, BHP was well aware before Elliott's arrival this was a growth project that needed to be made cheaper and less risky. At those full-year results, Mackenzie made it clear BHP would not be hurried on the Jansen project, and would simply wait until it could make the economics make sense. Making no decision was the right decision.

Clear communication

If Elliott affected anything about these moves it was the way they were communicated – sooner than many expected, and much more clearly.


Throughout the past 12 months Beaven and Mackenzie have laboured their adherence to the revised capital allocation framework, to explain how decisions have been taken and reassure investors that discipline lies behind decisions.

Elliott has – in a relatively quiet way, it must be said – taken credit for many changes, starting with the appointment of Ken Mackenzie, and particularly the shale announcement.

This credit-taking may have rankled with those inside the BHP camp early on, but the heat has well and truly come out of the battle with Elliott now.

All that's left is a bit of argy-bargy over what to do with the dual-listed structure; BHP and Elliott agree it should go, but Andrew Mackenzie and Beaven argued at February's half-year results that the details must be worked through, and the benefits pinned down.

This is, frankly, a fight at the margins. What the bulk of shareholders will focus on is whether BHP can profit from the strong interest in its shale assets, and deliver on its productivity promises.

Execute on these two goals, and increased shareholders returns look a certainty – and that's a win for BHP, Elliott and every other investor.