HSBC can turn deaf ear to this talkative activist

I wrote that he had "taken on the boards of Suez, the French utility giant, VNU, the Dutch media group, and Shell and won (and made a huge profit on his initial stake)".

Whereupon I was contacted by a number of people who suggested I take a closer look at these claims. In particular, they queried the reference to Shell. Knight Vinke Asset Management, his investment firm, made seven demands of the Shell management. Of these, just two were achieved.

One of those, the main plank, that Shell put its house in order and simplify its complex structure was accomplished - but only because the oil major was so rocked by the furore surrounding its overstated reserves. And that scandal broke in early January 2004, more than a month before Knight bought into the company.

In June that year, he requested that Shell put investor representatives on to its teams investigating the reserves affair, and it accelerate the timetable for publishing the true size of its proven reserves.

Shell ignored him and proceeded at its own pace. He did ask that it used surplus cash to buyback its shares, and this was done - albeit later than Knight wanted. His other points were ignored.

So, to Suez. This was his most recent campaign, before HSBC, and he ended it by saying "mission accomplished". Knight Vinke began buying Suez shares in January 2004 after the energy firm reported a loss for 2003. It put a value on the stock of e36 - and that was more than realised in January this year when Knight sold out at e40 and a 100% profit.

But this was not because Suez acceded to his demands for change and enhanced the value of the shares. He tabled six proposals, of which five didn't happen and one was only partially fulfilled. He lobbied for the break-up of the group, which wasn't done. He said Suez should spin off Belgium's Electrabelin which it held a minority stake, but Suez added to its shares. He asked that Suez establish an independent committee of directors to look at the Electrabel holding and the company refused. He pushed hard against the Suez merger with Gaz de France, but the deal went through in September this year.

On VNU, he made 14 demands, of which only five were achieved. The most important request, that VNU didn't agree to be bought by Valcon, the private-equity consortium, was rejected.

If I was HSBC chairman Stephen Green, I would stiffen my resolve. There's little sign of my leading shareholders swinging to Knight's cause. My confidence might be boosted further by the thought that CalPERS, the Californian Public Employees' Retirement System, the biggest pension fund in the US and 30% owner of Knight Vinke, is putting pressure on him. In its summary of investment performance for the third quarter 2007, CalPERS says Knight Vinke underperformed the FTSE World Series Europe index by 2.48%.

This might explain Knight's recent decision to look at another company. "It's difficult to run more than one campaign at a time, but we might start another one early next year," he said. Two possible names circulating in the City are Italian power supplier Enel and StatoilHydro of Norway.

Even Knight is human, and he can't focus entirely on more than one subject at once. It's also questionable, as he indicated, whether his organisation has the resources to fight on two fronts. That should mean HSBC will get relief from Knight's highly visible attacks.

Knight told me that, with HSBC, "we will be patient". Green should be patient too - and make sure that when changes do come, the world realises they are down to him and his team, and not the voluble Eric Knight.