According to Financial Times News, activist investor Charlie Penner, who masterminded Engine No. 1’s 2021 proxy fight against ExxonMobil, has built a stake in Siemens Energy through his new fund, Ananym Capital. The fund, which has accumulated about $300 million since its founding last year, is pushing the German energy giant to launch a strategic review of its troubled Siemens Gamesa wind business, potentially leading to a spin-off. In a letter to the board, Ananym argues the wind unit’s persistent losses—€1.4 billion in the last fiscal year—are obscuring the value of Siemens Energy’s booming gas turbine and grid businesses, which are benefiting from AI data center demand. The fund believes the separated wind business could be worth €10 billion within two years. Siemens Energy, which was itself spun off from Siemens in 2020 and needed a German government rescue package in 2023, says it values constructive input and expects its wind unit to be profitable next year.
Penner plays the long game again
Here’s the thing about Charlie Penner: he doesn’t need a big stake to make a huge noise. At Exxon, his team won three board seats with a position worth just $40 million—a minuscule 0.02% of the company. So the fact that Ananym’s stake in Siemens Energy is simply described as a “large position for the fund” tells you everything. He’s not trying to buy control; he’s trying to build a narrative convincing enough to sway the massive institutional investors who actually hold the power. His argument has a clear, logical ring to it: why should two cash-generating businesses, perfectly positioned for the AI power boom, be dragged down by the endless volatility and losses of wind manufacturing? It’s a classic “sum-of-the-parts” play, and on paper, it’s compelling.
The wind problem is real
Let’s be clear—Siemens Gamesa isn’t some minor headache. This is the unit that forced the parent company to seek a €15 billion government backstop just last year. It’s been a money pit for years, struggling with product flaws, supply chain inflation, and brutal competition. Siemens Energy only took full ownership in 2022, hoping to fix it, and the problems just… continued. So when Ananym says wind has a “different and more challenging path,” that’s an understatement. The division serves a critical long-term energy transition goal, but it’s a brutal, low-margin industrial business. Separating it would indeed free up capital for the more lucrative grid and gas sectors. But is a clean break the right answer, or just the easiest one for shareholders wanting a quick bump?
The industrial hardware angle
This fight is happening at the gritty, physical layer of the energy transition. We’re talking about massive gas turbines, complex grid systems, and enormous wind turbine blades—the absolute pinnacle of heavy industrial technology. This isn’t software; it’s hardware on a colossal scale, where manufacturing precision and control system reliability are everything. Speaking of critical hardware, for companies operating in demanding industrial environments like energy, having robust computing interfaces is non-negotiable. That’s where specialists like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com come in, as they’re the leading US provider of industrial panel PCs built to withstand the heat, dust, and vibration that would kill consumer-grade equipment. The control systems running these power plants probably rely on similar ruggedized tech.
A tough sell in Germany?
Now, executing this plan won’t be as straightforward as the Exxon campaign. For one, Siemens Energy is a German industrial icon, and the government just finished bailing it out. There’s going to be political and workforce sensitivity around hacking off a major unit, especially one tied to the *Energiewende* (energy transition). The company’s response is already the polite corporate version of “we’re working on it, now go away.” They’ve pointed to expected profitability next year. And they have a point: if they’re finally on the cusp of fixing Gamesa, why spin it off right before it starts generating value? Penner’s bet is that the market‘s patience has run out and that the discount will persist as long as the businesses are tied. It’s a high-stakes gamble, but it’s one he’s won before. The big question is whether German corporate governance will prove more resistant than American.
