Starboard Value · activist-deck
DSP Group, Inc. (DSPG)
50 pages · 3 arc beats · 2 loops
DSP Group, Inc. (DSPG)
Starboard Value · 2013-05 arc beats above · slides in the middle · loops below · scroll → 2 LOOPS
12468101214161820222426283032343638404244464850
Deck intelligence map
3 coverage by narrative range · generated from this deck JSON
Narrative range 43 total
Metadata
Components
Metrics
Tools
Frameworks
Beats
Loops
Problem 3 slides 100% 3/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides · 15 hits — 0/3 slides
66.7% 2/3 slides · 3 hits 33.3% 1/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides — 0/3 slides
Agitate 31 slides 100% 31/31 slides 100% 31/31 slides · 199 hits — 0/31 slides
12.9% 4/31 slides 90.3% 28/31 slides 100% 31/31 slides 100% 31/31 slides Solution 9 slides 100% 9/9 slides 100% 9/9 slides · 59 hits — 0/9 slides
— 0/9 slides
55.6% 5/9 slides 100% 9/9 slides 100% 9/9 slides Slide inventory
50 every slide · same image gating as the playbook
03
This is a classic activist 'case for change' slide, outlining the specific grievances against the board and management.diagnose_problem
Open slide detailBeat · Problem
04
This is a classic activist deck slide framing the incumbent board as obstructionist and the new nominees as the solution.introduce_nominees
Open slide detailBeat · Problem
06
The slide uses a combination of a summary returns table and three time-series line charts to demonstrate long-term underperformance.expose_contradiction
07
Includes a vertical dashed line marking a 'Starboard 13D Filing' event.diagnose_problem
08
The slide highlights the disconnect between high operating expenses and declining revenue, framing it as a management failure.diagnose_problem
09
Uses a dual-chart layout to contrast capital allocation (rising) against revenue performance (falling).expose_contradiction
10
Uses a dual-chart layout to contrast capital allocation (spending) with market outcome (enterprise value decline).expose_contradiction
11
The slide uses a red arrow annotation to emphasize the downward trend.diagnose_problem
12
Uses peer benchmarking to infer internal profitability metrics for a company that does not disclose them.compare_peers
13
Uses a comparison between actual DSP performance and hypothetical SiTel margins to illustrate the opportunity cost of R&D spending.expose_contradiction
14
The slide uses a table to contrast management guidance with actual results, calculating the absolute and percentage misses.expose_contradiction
15
Uses a before-after style comparison to highlight management's failure to execute.expose_contradiction
16
Uses red boxes to highlight the unrealistic market share growth and the resulting negative fully allocated operating income.expose_contradiction
17
Uses a red circle to highlight the specific contradiction in the 2012 forecast (13.0M vs 5.0M).expose_contradiction
18
The chart on the right uses a 'goal post' metaphor to visualize the shifting target dates for revenue.expose_contradiction
19
The slide uses a classic activist investor 'strategic critique' structure, highlighting a specific management decision and providing three distinct reasons for name_villain
20
Uses a series of historical quotes to build a case of management failure/misleading statements.expose_contradiction
21
Uses a classic 'Commitment vs. Reality' framing to undermine management credibility.expose_contradiction
22
The slide uses a bulleted list to build a causal argument for board intervention.state_demand
24
The slide uses a contrast-based argument, highlighting the nominees' past successes to emphasize the board's failure to utilize them.introduce_nominees
25
Uses a table to visually demonstrate the exclusion of specific directors.expose_contradiction
26
This is a classic activist 'villain' or 'conflict of interest' slide, using historical context to frame current governance issues.expose_contradiction
27
Uses a red box to visually highlight the specific individuals who serve on both boards or have dual roles.expose_contradiction
28
The slide uses a quote box to highlight the specific terms of the expired agreement.expose_contradiction
29
The slide uses a table to demonstrate overlapping board memberships and financial interests to question the independence of decision-making.expose_contradiction
30
Uses red trend lines to highlight the contrasting performance (118% increase vs 55% decrease).compare_peers
31
Uses a table to detail specific individuals and their realized gains to build a case of self-interest.expose_contradiction
32
The slide uses a bulleted list to detail governance concerns and strategic missteps.expose_contradiction
34
The slide uses a table to contrast long board tenure with zero or negligible stock ownership to argue against board alignment with shareholders.expose_contradiction
36
Uses a before-after visual structure to highlight the evolution of the board's misleading communications.expose_contradiction
38
The slide uses a 'problem-solution' structure, contrasting current R&D failures with the proposed oversight by independent nominees.propose_solution
39
The table highlights the discrepancy between revenue and operating profit/EBITDA, suggesting mismanagement of R&D and SG&A expenses.expose_contradiction
40
Uses a red box highlight to draw attention to the EBITDA comparison between the two companies.compare_peers
43
The slide uses a structured 'Scenario-Steps-Result' format for each case study.introduce_nominees
44
The slide uses a case study format to validate the nominee's credentials.introduce_nominees
45
The slide uses a structured 'Scenario-Steps-Result' format for each experience entry.introduce_nominees