Let's say that round 1 was Starboard and "Blackboard" (absence of light, don'cha know) felt each other up...er, out. In round 2, Starboard announced a proposed slate of directors, and now Blackboard has retaliated with a restructuring plan for DOC [and the crowd roars].
We learn that half or more of the cash drain at DOC was involved in the effort to provide full camera modules rather than autofocus actuators. The decision to manufacture the actuators was forced on DOC by the rampant IP theft in semiconductor manufacturing, but the extension to full camera modules was a voluntary mistake.
Do we see more swinging for knockout blows, or do they go back into a clinch?
You describe yourself as a former insider with some knowledge of board/president's office [lack of] communications. Now you're talking about something being fought out at the factory manager level. Someone just asked me for a resume on another message board, and I gave one. Generally, what's your experience?
In the mean time, I feel pretty comfortable looking with amusement at the politics of a company with about $12 a share of cash (including estimated Amkor payment) and an $18 stock price. Maybe Starboard will straighten them out, maybe death will...they might even work this out themselves. But 2/3 of the stock price is quite a cushion.
Resume.. No problem, but I don't want to ID myself. I directly reported to the CEO and worked with all the executives at a hight level. Worked there for over five years. My observation is that they have eliminated all the BEST managers/executives there and now have such a vacuum that they can't effectively operate at this time. They just terminate two more key people too: CIO and corporate counsel along with other key support staff.
Apparently Yahoo is playing with controlling depth of replies, with unfortunate results. I just want to comment that free-floating leadership can go down the toilet for all I care. With what order and enthusiasm did Motorola blast away the company on Iridium? How beautifully Snapple was integrated into Quaker Oats (leaving all the customers behind). While Larry Ellison says what he wants and goes sailing, and Warren Buffet buys companies and tells managers "It's still yours until you make a blunder...which you haven't show a tendency to in the past)"
I like plans that can handle a reasonable range of futures with modest tweaking. I like good owner-manager communications. I guess what I like most is a good policy/operations interface: people on each side should justifiably respect the people on the other side..
Reply button not working properly on iPad, so sorry about the wrong placement.
I have worked with all the last three CEOs and by far the current one is the least qualified and experienced in leading and team building. He also, IMO, can not be trusted to be honest.
Hank was a very good leader and everyone respected him. Same for Bruce, although he was much more academic and not as good a leader as Hank. The current CEO has not shown any leadership abilities and has surrounded himself with "yes men" as stated by Starboard. Without a leadership and trust at the top, Tessera is doomed. The only real source of revenue is from old patents and licenses that are very outdated. Without R&D and ability a to show customers how to make their new technology they are finding it hard to get new business. They also have a bad track record of litigation against companies that they want to sell their new tech to now and can't because they #$%$ them off.
There are (we're) a lot of good hard working smart employees at Tessera, but most are gone or leaving now. Good luck Tessera and everyone that still holds stock in them!
Ah. So you reported to Mr Nothaft. Can you tell us [or is it just me reading this?] whether he had substance to him, or was he just a cheerleader? (He was a good cheerleader, too, until he underestimated Cramer's vanity. A good cheerleader is worth 5% in stock price, easy--which DOES mean that giving Mr Young a spokesman would be worth 10%) Is the degree of secrecy we're seeing really necessary around licensing negotiations? Do they need to be done in the all-or-nothing way the original ones were done, or is Tessera stuck in a model that worked once upon a time? Was there someone in the past who was particularly good at breaking logjams in such negotiations? Do you think it was correct to just drop the old "specialty camera" (I always presumed smart bomb) business (which at least gave people some hands-on manufacturing experience)?
It seems to me that now they've trimmed their egos a bit and reduced the camera module business to the actuator business, the make-or-break issue for DOC is the learning curve for MEMS yield. That gets fought out on or near the shop floor. I'm a corporate lab guy myself, from food: my prejudice is that once production starts, execs are mostly just in the way (well, except for the front-line QA folks who aren't really execs but need titles to get everyone's attention).
I'm not running for the hills when a $5+ special dividend is a real possibility within the year.
I think if the executives (not all were a problem) just trusted their staff (with lost of knowledge and experience) to get the work done they wouldn't be in this situation. Putting your "buddies" in positions that they weren't qualified is not a good way to run a company. Karma is a b!tch : )