george,
You make an interesting point. Consider for example, royalty rates. Right now, the royalty numbers are elided from the disclosures, and the way we find out about them is companies talk about them in double-speak ("low single-digits") but manage to give analysts a better indication (maybe "high low single digits" for 3?). Or they play a guessing game (Analyst: I'm using 10% in my calculations. Company: Well that's about right, but maybe a little low. (11%).)
I think it's mostly the pharma that don't want the numbers disclosed, perhaps because they feel it would somehow diminish their bargaining power.
This isn't something that is likely to change, and may actually now get worse in that companies can't even "guide" the analysts to the right number. This may be a good example of how the new rule might make things worse (although overall I support it).
I'm not sure about when the new rule is going into effect. Here was the key section from the Proposed Rule:
Rule 101 of Regulation FD sets forth the basic rule regarding "selective disclosure." Under this Rule, whenever:
(1) an issuer, or any person acting on its behalf,
(2) discloses material nonpublic information
(3) to any other person outside the issuer,
(4) the issuer must
(a) simultaneously (for intentional disclosures), or
(b) "promptly" (for non-intentional disclosures)
(5) make public disclosure of that same information.
The full Proposed Rule can be found at:
sec.gov
Peter |
