>ICE, companies routinely do not comment to rumors. Like it or not, that seems to be the accepted response. It must be something that has evolved from experience.
Gottfried,
I know companies don't routinely respond to rumors. And I know that experience probably proves it doesn't work for some reason or another. You are right. But I don't like it.
The military, for example, knows that rumors can literally be deadly to an operation, and the military has effective mechanisms to control rumors.
Also, the White House, as another example, has rumor control mechanisms. Why not businesses? Business rumors can be "deadly" (so to speak), or at least "costly" (I'm sure) to shareholders and stakeholders as well.
I don't want to stir up this subject again, except to point out that rumor control is something I think could be easily and effectively accomplished with a rumor control line. And especially by IOM and the current available technology.
As you say, maybe business experience has proved otherwise. But I fail to see how the interests of those of us holding IOM shares can best be served by a "no comment" response in the face of substantial rumors such as we've seen in the past few days.
Having said that, I don't know that IOM doesn't have a rumor control line. Maybe they do.
-------
You mentioned Greasepan. Yes, he doesn't let rumors drive his actions. That's fine. But at the same time, he is also all too willing to start rumors himself. What was that he said about excessive market exuberance, or something to that effect? How many innocent investors lost money in that fiasco?
I guess I'm in the minority, but I think that many business rumors are much too serious for a corporate "no comment" response. I would tackle a rumor one-on-one, and head-on, if I were KE. Set a new standard in rumor control, as well as for floppies.
But then, what do I know? These are just my opinions, which aren't necessarily in disagreement with yours at all.
Have a nice weekend. Going sailing?
Ice
|
