Why Managing for Shareholder Value is hard

In the Journal of Strategy and Business, John Ballow from Accenture and Roland Bergman from AssetEconomics Holdings present 3 reasons why increasing shareholder value is difficult.
1. Managing for Future growth is hard, because its exact components are hard to identify and to understand.
2. Managing Intangibles is perplexing, because current accounting systems fail to track and analyze them (although they represent over 75% of all corporate value)
3. Deciding where to invest resources is hard, given the inability of current management tools to provide a reliable link between investments and the creation of shareholder value.
I would suggest to add at least 2 more reasons:
4. Getting your whole company to manage for shareholder value is hard and complex, since it often requires a change in culture, a substantial change initiative and CEO support.
5. Balancing Stakeholders interests with shareholder value creation also adds considerably to managerial complexity.

BAH study: Insider CEO's perform better

A recent comprehensive study of the worlds 2.500 largests companies by Booz Allen Hamilton (S+B, June 2004) shows that outsider CEO's deliver significantly lower shareholder returns than insider CEO's do over the course of their tenure. "The best-performing leaders already have experience at the company they are leading. Prior service and experience as a chief executive does not correlate with superior performance. To the contrary, over the six years of our study, CEOs who had previously led other companies delivered returns for investors 3.7 percentage points per year lower than first-time insiders".
As reasons for Insider CEO's being more succesfull are given:
1. Outsiders often have a mandate from the board to oversee a major, needed change, but frequently lack the personal networks, cultural understanding, and deep knowledge of the multiple operating environments — in sum, the “social capital” — to sustain change and high performance at a firm throughout their tenures.
2. Outsiders typically are brought in to execute a specific playbook — to solve this problem now in this way. But in BAH's experience, the most successful CEOs are those who can adapt and modify the playbook, their own leadership styles, or both; they create new directions as needed.
Do you agree with the reasons that BAH provides, or do you believe there are other (additional) reasons behind this important finding?