4 ms·

Yeah, these statements really don't inspire confidence for me either as an investor or consumer, but I'm not privy to some of the investor calls where they elab

Yeah, these statements really don't inspire confidence for me either as an investor or consumer, but I'm not privy to some of the investor calls where they elaborate on how they define these terms. Typically things like "business unit operating model" will be illuminated / detailed in other presentations with a smaller audience, and are just referenced in the press releases as little reminders to the institutional investors.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago
That's a very generous interpretation.
lesuorac 3y ago
Wouldn't it be securities fraud to give information on how the business is operated to some investors but not others? I suspect any explanation of those terms would need to be on their investors page. https://investors.xerox.com/news-and-events/presentations-webcasts https://investors.xerox.com/news-and-events/presentations-we...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- staticman2 3y ago
  I doubt that. This is a press release about a business. If press releases were illegally "giving information on how the business is operated to some investors" then, for example, Apple could never hold press events and would have to announce things on their investor page.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Parent said "but I'm not privy to some of the investor calls where they elaborate on how they define these terms. Typically things like "business unit operating model" will be illuminated / detailed in other presentations with a smaller audience". I'm saying that I think that Xerox can't be explaining things in this much depth to some investors but not others. Certainly Xerox can give information to CNBC to release to all investors (who read CNBC) at roughly the same time. It's basically public since everybody has CNBC access but a private presentation is by definition not public.
- reaperman 3y ago
  As Matt Levine puts it[0]: > In principle the companies are not supposed to give the investors material nonpublic information during these conversations. In practice, the conversations are not social calls. The analysts hope to get something out of them. It's rarely "our earnings are going to be way better than anyone expected." It might be something vaguer and squishier than that: hints, body language, a general sense of how management thinks about the world, its industry, its competition, its opportunities. Or it might be something much narrower and more specific: The company might help the analyst with particular line items in her model, adding nuance to her sophisticated understanding of its financial situation. Specific clarification on details of their new "business unit operating model" would be a relatively normal thing to talk about. It's not something that is a smoking gun for insider trading, but can be written off as just general clarification of an industry term of art. This would be a normal thing for business analysts to get a deeper dive into. 0: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-can-investors-talk-to-companies- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-c...
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    Bleh, I guess it's legal for now. We'll see if his opinion changes in the future since he seems on the fence already. > These things are plausibly not "material nonpublic information." But they are obviously things that investors want. That's why investors meet with companies. That's why investors who meet with companies perform better than those who don't. And all of this is legal. Or legal-ish. Or at least in a broad gray area between legal and illegal.
prewett 3y ago
The 2.5% profit margin, 94% dividend payout ratio, and 125% debt-to-equity ratio really don't inspire confidence in me as a consumer, either. And a meaningless statement like that makes me think things are not going to turn around anytime soon. Unlike, say, Intel when Gelsinger took over--it wasn't clear if his plan was going to work, but he articulated a pretty clear plan.

tonyedgecombe 3y ago

That's a very generous interpretation.

lesuorac 3y ago

Wouldn't it be securities fraud to give information on how the business is operated to some investors but not others? I suspect any explanation of those terms would need to be on their investors page. https://investors.xerox.com/news-and-events/presentations-webcasts https://investors.xerox.com/news-and-events/presentations-we...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
staticman2 3y ago
I doubt that. This is a press release about a business. If press releases were illegally "giving information on how the business is operated to some investors" then, for example, Apple could never hold press events and would have to announce things on their investor page.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I don't think we're talking about the same thing. Parent said "but I'm not privy to some of the investor calls where they elaborate on how they define these terms. Typically things like "business unit operating model" will be illuminated / detailed in other presentations with a smaller audience". I'm saying that I think that Xerox can't be explaining things in this much depth to some investors but not others. Certainly Xerox can give information to CNBC to release to all investors (who read CNBC) at roughly the same time. It's basically public since everybody has CNBC access but a private presentation is by definition not public.
reaperman 3y ago
As Matt Levine puts it[0]: > In principle the companies are not supposed to give the investors material nonpublic information during these conversations. In practice, the conversations are not social calls. The analysts hope to get something out of them. It's rarely "our earnings are going to be way better than anyone expected." It might be something vaguer and squishier than that: hints, body language, a general sense of how management thinks about the world, its industry, its competition, its opportunities. Or it might be something much narrower and more specific: The company might help the analyst with particular line items in her model, adding nuance to her sophisticated understanding of its financial situation. Specific clarification on details of their new "business unit operating model" would be a relatively normal thing to talk about. It's not something that is a smoking gun for insider trading, but can be written off as just general clarification of an industry term of art. This would be a normal thing for business analysts to get a deeper dive into. 0: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-can-investors-talk-to-companies- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-c...
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Bleh, I guess it's legal for now. We'll see if his opinion changes in the future since he seems on the fence already. > These things are plausibly not "material nonpublic information." But they are obviously things that investors want. That's why investors meet with companies. That's why investors who meet with companies perform better than those who don't. And all of this is legal. Or legal-ish. Or at least in a broad gray area between legal and illegal.

prewett 3y ago

The 2.5% profit margin, 94% dividend payout ratio, and 125% debt-to-equity ratio really don't inspire confidence in me as a consumer, either. And a meaningless statement like that makes me think things are not going to turn around anytime soon. Unlike, say, Intel when Gelsinger took over--it wasn't clear if his plan was going to work, but he articulated a pretty clear plan.