Tessera Technologies Incentivizes CEO to Pursue the Possibility of a Spin-Off
I don't know why I still follow TSRA... I've been out for years now and see virtually no reason to enter anymore, but I still monitor it occasionally and this kind of announcement just really aggravates me in general so I'm gonna stick my two cents in........ What the hell???? The Board of Directors thinks it's necessary to incentivize the CEO further TO DO HIS JOB????? It's this kind of corporate largesse and ridiculous self rewarding of insiders by insiders that really makes you wonder about corporate governance or lack thereof. So in other words, if Young does his job, something he should be fired for if he doesn't do instead of being "incentivized" further for just plain doing, the BOD will give 1% of your company to him at no risk or cost? Gimme a break. This kind of thing really irks me.
SAN JOSE, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Tessera Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:TSRA) (the "Company") today announced a unanimous agreement by the Company's Board of Directors and its Compensation Committee to amend its compensation arrangement with Robert A. Young, president and chief executive officer, giving him incentive to pursue the possibility of a business segment spin-off, which is a key strategic alternative within the Board's long-term plan.
It IS kind of odd-looking. On the other hand, at the very least he'd be CEO of a much smaller company if he sold half or it, and more likely he'd be out of a job. Anyway, we once again have a tiny bit more than the minimum possible information out of the company: the BoD are still of the opinion that the company should be split completely (It's not really important who keeps the Tessera name. Also, since both halves are fundamentally suppliers to industries with several powerful players, a sale of a division to ONE of the players would limit its potential market)
I get your point, Jac, but let's back up a bit and remember just who this particular CEO is... He's not a corporate guy per se. He's an investment banker who's been involved as one of the original venture capital backers. Point being, he wouldn't even be losing half of his potential as a career CEO because he's never been a career CEO...He's always been an interrim kind of CEO here, steering the ship, not setting the course imho....As a venture capitalist it's almost in his genes to be doing exactly this kind of thing as a way of "monetizing" the investment.,,,,