Great post, keith, I meant to respond sooner but was in another dimension (Bre-X...<g>). When you say "irrelevant now", you mean the "should they or shouldn't they" part of the header, right? Imho you and I and everybody else present would agree that they should, but there are a good number who aren't, Winspear comes to mind, that was the inspiration for the thread. They're likely put off by the music, though <g>.
"The quality of postings is improving, peer pressure is getting rid of the hypesters and idiots, and the very real threat of regulatory lurking forces IR people to be professional on the web."
True, imho. Maybe it's wishful thinking, but it does seem to be improving, each individual's learning curve in sorting wheat from chaff could be a factor, in such a relatively rule-free chaos there will always be hypesters and idiots, but they're no more than a time-sucking annoyance after you've been around here for a while, and they tend not to last long.
As for "regulatory lurking forcing IR people to be professional"....well yes, I agree, but there's a far more important reason, imho. As an investor/speculator, anything from a company rep resembling investment advice or positive "forward-looking statements" puts me off big-time, it is a bright red flag, and I'll bet I'm not alone in that sentiment. It's information we come here for, and a few laughs at times with people with common interests, communities develop and gain a life of their own, but it all begins and ends with a strong demand for clear, comprehensive information. Imho, investors would like more information about the risks and hazards of company projects and decisions, sort of like the Americans have on the bottom of those Edgar reports, a whole balanced picture, positive and negative, objectively presented.
Well, we won't get it from IR, that would be against human nature, the name says it all-- "Investor Relations" -- it's the branch of the company that mollifies and pacifies the existing shareholders while supplying prospective ones with encouraging information. That's just the way it is, it comes with the territory. There's a similarity here with geologists, as Dr Webb says on the MGR thread; "Can you imagine a pessimistic geologist? He wouldn't be able to scrape up the energy to go out there...."
That's why we like to see bears on threads, or longs with tough questions, even the proverbial "shorts", it balances the equation, it stimulates information, it stimulates interest as well imho.
"... should a company put out news, or post at SI, if 1) a rumour, (true or false) is causing the stock to move (up or down), or 2) if they see a blatantly false posting about their company."
Well, the "false rumour" part is easy, eh, we're all pretty agreed that false rumours should be de-bunked by whoever gets to it first, IR or long or interested bystander.
But the "true rumour"....doesn't that sound like "insider information"? I would say the company should put out news in that case, SI isn't considered public enough. Interesting question, can you give an example where that might not be the case?
...this post may not look so great in the morning, I'm falling asleep, cheers, keith .....marcos
PS...the "caveat emptor"....absolutely everything in the stock market, imho, is logically caveat emptor, and absolutely everything a person reads, on the internet or elsewhere, is caveat lector.....
...and that includes this post.......and yours..... ;-) |
