I don't think it's a transparency issue. It's the conflicting goals that come from different investing timeframes. I'm buy-and-holding for retirement. I want

I don't think it's a transparency issue. It's the conflicting goals that come from different investing timeframes. I'm buy-and-holding for retirement. I want my shares to peak in 2040. The next guy churns his portfolio every few months and wants prices to peak in November. Even if you communicate your vision and goals well, any type of long-term vision is saying to the short-term investors "we're going to give you smaller dividends and lower numbers for future promise." So the short-term investor can either hope that the communication is solid and long-term buyers are engaged by that messaging enough to keep the price high, or they can lean on boards to prioritize stuff like dividends and buybacks that provide a more direct boost. We can definitely see the latter approach in play. I worry that in pursuit of pricing efficiency, we've started underprice the future value of some business structures. The decline of conglomerates fits that sort of fear. You can shard a company like Honeywell/GE/Hyundai/Sony/Hitachi into 200 individually priced and tracked units, but then you lose the difficult-to-quantify magic of "predictable money-making businesses that can provide the financial resources and stability to support long-term bets and moon-shot R&D". I would be unsurprised to see this attitude in more monolithic firms too-- being open with your figures to investors will lead to pressures against anything that's not identifiable as a very low risk play with obvious payout.