2 ms·
As Matt Levine puts it[0]: > In principle the companies are not supposed to give the investors material nonpublic information during these conversations. In pr
by 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 agoBleh, 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.