Starboard Value · activist-deck
Autodesk, Inc. (ADSK)
88 pages · 5 arc beats · 3 loops
Autodesk, Inc. (ADSK)
Starboard Value · 2024-08 arc beats above · slides in the middle · loops below · scroll → 3 LOOPS
151015202530354045505560657075808588
Deck intelligence map
5 coverage by narrative range · generated from this deck JSON
Narrative range 65 total
Metadata
Components
Metrics
Tools
Frameworks
Beats
Loops
Problem Statement 3 slides 100% 3/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides · 15 hits — 0/3 slides
33.3% 1/3 slides · 2 hits 66.7% 2/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides 100% 3/3 slides Expose Contradiction 21 slides 100% 21/21 slides 100% 21/21 slides · 124 hits — 0/21 slides
— 0/21 slides
76.2% 16/21 slides 100% 21/21 slides 100% 21/21 slides · 42 hits Propose Solution 16 slides 100% 16/16 slides 100% 16/16 slides · 104 hits — 0/16 slides
6.3% 1/16 slides 93.8% 15/16 slides 100% 16/16 slides 100% 16/16 slides · 32 hits Villain Critique 10 slides 100% 10/10 slides 100% 10/10 slides · 51 hits — 0/10 slides
10% 1/10 slides 90% 9/10 slides 100% 10/10 slides 100% 10/10 slides Executive Summary 15 slides 100% 15/15 slides 100% 15/15 slides · 92 hits — 0/15 slides
13.3% 2/15 slides 93.3% 14/15 slides · 16 hits 100% 15/15 slides 100% 15/15 slides Slide inventory
88 every slide · same image gating as the playbook
04
Uses a two-part structure: a diagnostic table of failures followed by a list of required actions.diagnose_problem
05
The slide uses a checkmark list to summarize qualitative business strengths.establish_context
06
The slide uses a red 'X' icon to denote negative performance indicators, followed by a rhetorical question in a dashed box to transition to the next section.diagnose_problem
07
The slide uses a numbered list format to present a series of grievances against the company.diagnose_problem
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
08
The slide highlights a 21 percentage point underperformance gap.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
09
The slide uses red color coding for Autodesk to emphasize underperformance relative to the indices.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
10
The slide uses red bars and red annotations to emphasize Autodesk's underperformance relative to the indices.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
11
The slide uses red bars and red arrows to emphasize the performance gap between Autodesk and the indices.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
12
The slide uses red bars for Autodesk to emphasize underperformance and red arrows to quantify the point gap.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
13
The chart highlights significant underperformance of Autodesk relative to the indices across all timeframes.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
14
The slide highlights the performance gap between Autodesk and relevant software indices during the CEO's tenure.compare_peers
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
15
The chart uses a 7-year timeframe to demonstrate long-term value destruction relative to peers.expose_contradiction
16
The slide uses a numbered list to frame the company's issues as a series of failures.diagnose_problem
18
The slide uses a red dashed oval to highlight the specific financial targets, likely to contrast them with current performance in the broader activist deck.expose_contradiction
19
The table is largely empty, serving as a template for tracking target revisions over time.compare_peers
20
The slide uses a red dashed ellipse to highlight the specific metrics being scrutinized by the activist investor.expose_contradiction
21
The slide highlights a specific historical commitment to contrast with current performance or expectations.expose_contradiction
22
The table is largely empty, highlighting a lack of consistent reporting or tracking of historical commitments.compare_peers
23
The slide uses a red dashed oval to highlight the targets, likely to contrast with later performance or revised guidance.expose_contradiction
24
The table highlights a pattern of historical commitments for FY2023 and FY2026, with empty columns for actuals and consensus, suggesting a critique of target recompare_peers
25
The slide uses a bridge-style comparison to show how M&A activity adjusted the company's financial targets.expose_contradiction
26
Uses a screenshot of a previous investor day presentation to establish a baseline commitment.expose_contradiction
27
The table highlights a pattern of consistent financial guidance across multiple years.compare_peers
28
Uses red 'X' icons to visually emphasize failure to meet targets.expose_contradiction
29
Uses a timeline-style progression to show the shift in margin targets.expose_contradiction
30
Uses a red dashed circle and callout box to highlight the target reduction.expose_contradiction
31
Uses a timeline-style flow to show the 'miss' and the subsequent lowering of expectations.expose_contradiction
32
Uses a side-by-side quote comparison to frame a contradiction in management's stated goals.expose_contradiction
33
The slide uses red dashed boxes and 'LOWERED' callouts to emphasize the negative trend in financial guidance.expose_contradiction
34
The slide uses red text for actual/consensus figures that fall below or deviate from the historical targets, emphasizing the gap.expose_contradiction
35
Uses red 'X' icons to visually emphasize missed targets.expose_contradiction
36
The slide uses a numbered list format to present a series of grievances against the company's leadership.diagnose_problem
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
37
The chart uses a 'Rule of 40' style metric (Growth + Margin) to highlight ADSK's underperformance relative to peers.compare_peers
38
The slide uses a 'before-after' style logic to expose a contradiction in financial performance.compare_peers
39
Uses a structured list format to categorize margin improvement opportunities.propose_solution
40
The chart uses a red bar to highlight the target company (ADSK) against peers.compare_peers
41
Uses a waterfall-style logic to adjust spend and a bar chart to compare against peers.expose_contradiction
42
The slide uses a peer benchmark to justify a specific cost-cutting target of 300bps.compare_peers
43
The slide uses a red callout box to emphasize the contradiction between announced job cuts and actual headcount growth.expose_contradiction
44
Uses a contrast-pairs framework to highlight the gap between industry peers and the target company.expose_contradiction
45
Uses a combination of longitudinal growth analysis and cross-sectional peer benchmarking to highlight excessive compensation.compare_peers
46
The slide uses a simple arithmetic flow to define incremental margin as (Delta Operating Profit / Delta Revenue).present_framework
47
The slide uses a 'bridge' style calculation to show how revenue growth and profit growth result in a 71% incremental margin.analyze_data
48
The slide uses a 'Change' box to calculate the incremental margin (delta profit / delta revenue).expose_contradiction
49
The slide uses a 'Change' column to highlight the delta between FY2024 and FY2027E, framing the 36% incremental margin as a failure to improve profitability.preempt_rebuttal
50
The slide uses a dual-line chart to demonstrate the inverse relationship between growth and margin efficiency, contrasting historical performance with consensusexpose_contradiction
51
The slide uses a color-coded legend to distinguish between 'Design Software Peers' and 'Other Scaled Software Peers'.compare_peers
52
Includes a table detailing consensus revenue, gross profit, operating income, and margins, alongside specific cost reduction targets.propose_solution
53
The slide uses a numbered list format to present a series of grievances against the company.diagnose_problem
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
54
The slide uses a contrast between the high payout percentages and the 'modest' performance descriptor to imply excessive compensation.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
55
Uses a split-chart approach to contrast historical performance periods.expose_contradiction
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
56
Uses red 'X' icons to denote negative practices.name_villain
57
Uses a contrast-pairs framework to highlight the gap between stated intent and actual practice.expose_contradiction
58
The slide uses a table to show that targets for FY2023 remained largely static across multiple years of investor presentations.expose_contradiction
59
The slide uses a 'miss vs. investor day' column to highlight the delta between public commitments and internal compensation hurdles.expose_contradiction
60
The slide uses red 'X' marks to visually emphasize the failure to meet historical targets, contrasting them with high 'Comp Attainment' percentages.expose_contradiction
61
Uses a series of grouped bar charts to contrast public investor expectations with internal compensation hurdles.expose_contradiction
62
Uses a stacked bar chart to visualize the weighting of compensation components (Revenue vs. Income/FCF).expose_contradiction
63
Uses a highlighted excerpt from a proxy statement to support the activist's critique of executive compensation practices.expose_contradiction
64
The slide highlights a negative governance practice by contrasting Autodesk with its peers.compare_peers
65
Uses a contrast-pair structure to highlight misalignment between management incentives and shareholder value.expose_contradiction
66
The slide uses a numbered list format to highlight specific areas of concern, with one item (5) highlighted in a different color to emphasize the severity of thframe_problem
67
Uses a screenshot of a news article as primary evidence.cite_precedent
68
The slide uses a red dashed line and arrow to highlight the 22% drop in share price.expose_contradiction
69
The slide is a template for a timeline, currently showing only the starting point (FY2018).expose_contradiction
70
The slide uses a timeline to frame a narrative of intentional misleading behavior by leadership.expose_contradiction
71
The slide uses a timeline to frame a narrative of intentional deception by leadership.expose_contradiction
72
Uses a timeline framework to highlight a sequence of events that suggest intentional misleading of shareholders.expose_contradiction
73
Uses a timeline framework to highlight the gap between public statements and internal actions.expose_contradiction
74
Uses a timeline framework to illustrate a sequence of events leading to a contradiction.expose_contradiction
75
Uses a direct quote from the company's own audit findings to frame management as deceptive.expose_contradiction
76
Uses a quote-contradiction framework to highlight management hypocrisy.expose_contradiction
77
Uses a visual equation to show how the manipulated metrics feed into the 'Financial Goal Funding Multiplier', leading to higher payouts.expose_contradiction
78
Uses headshots and arrows to link actions to individuals, with '???' used to imply missing accountability for certain actions.expose_contradiction
80
The slide uses a numbered list format to present a series of grievances against the current leadership.diagnose_problem
81
The slide uses a bar chart to visualize acquisition spend and a callout box to emphasize the cumulative total.name_villain
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
82
The slide uses a series of rhetorical questions to challenge the Board's governance.state_demand
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
83
Uses a waterfall chart to illustrate the buildup of total cash available for buybacks through FY2027.propose_solution
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
85
The slide uses a numbered list to define the Board's duties and a red-dashed callout box to deliver the core critique.name_villain
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
86
Includes a specific callout for cost savings (500bps S&M, 300bps G&A) and a projection of share repurchases.propose_solution
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
87
Includes a watermark 'WWW.TUXEBITDA.COM' in the center.state_demand
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction
88
This is a branding/filler slide at the end of the deck.filler
Open slide detailLoop · Cost Of Inaction