Jana Partners sent a letter to Fiserv Board of Directors stating in short that they're not comfortable with insufficient changes to remediate governance issues and want further "board change".
Jana supports the same of our debit network and also calls for comprehensive review of the entire asset portfolio.
Also, Fiserv should not need an activist investor to bring accountability. Accountability should be an integral part of the company. The fact that a catalyst is required tells you that Executive culture is seriously flawed.
There is a complete lack of accountability for C Suite at Fiserv. In the past this allowed the Frank-enstein monster to roam freely, but it also enforced this ridiculous culture. Executives can and SHOULD be held to the highest standards.
I know Fiserv is the revolving door of the JP Morgan club, but all of this needs to stop. The failures that are identified by Jana Partners should force a complete analysis of who facilitated and allowed these failures to occur.
Why would Adam Rosman allow the Dhivya contract to be approved and what does this say about his legal expertise? It sounds like some serious additional departures are needed now and a framework of accountability as well as public statement of a commitment to accountability for executive leadership alone.
All of these executives are expecting a ship with a crew of less than half to quickly make vast improvements while they throw around millions of dollars in contract incentives, but tell the sailors that there isn't enough funds to lift the spirits of the crew.
They ain't wrong
@OP Perhaps eliminate a couple of excess "Vice Chairman" positions? Hmmm???
@a8 https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/jana-partners-sends-letter-fiserv-140000973.html
She can just say the board is scamming investors and employees of the company by treating this like a PE exit venture
Jana Partners just as upset as the rest of us on that Dhivya contract.
Source?
"Recent failures in executive talent retention and attraction, including allowing senior executives to tie their own employment agreements to the continued service of the CEO, have further damaged the Board's standing with investors"