Hacker News Reader

Comment by hdevarajan | Hacker News Reader

Were parties aware that this was close to or a de facto reg fd violation (https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-7881.htm) and/or how was this handled internally?

View on HN

Incidents and accidents notwithstanding, those involved in calls with and modelling for analysts and rating agencies are well aware of these rules. At least in my firm there is proper compliance coaching and continual awareness programmes about closed periods and internal continuity on what is disclosed publicly and when. Schedules are transparent and analyst calls in audio or transcripts are made available. Industry professionals even read these of competing firms, especially when there's trouble or a lol to be had. There's a lot that can go wrong, intentionally or not, but this part is quite a managed process.

Some companies like Microsoft were highly rigorous in managing information disclosure, and also in maintaining a lengthy quiet period. I could often hear investor relations at MSFT in the backgrounds of calls flipping through their internal playbooks of what they can and cannot say. Some other companies weren't as structured. I can't speak for how corporates managed disclosures internally, but I managed my own risk by typically publishing right after e.g. a corporate access event to reduce the risk of selective disclosure of material information.

I saw a handful of Reg FD filing updates and stock halts when new information was accidentally put out there by management. That was always embarrassing.

Could you explain more? That is like a hundred pages of regulations and I don't know anything about this.

Short answer: reg fd requires companies to disclose information material to investors to all investors. The previous post is suggesting that the close work with the bank analysts is conveying material information without proper disclosure. My hunch is that the legions is compliance lawyers at both the banks and at the companies have deemed this to be within the bounds of the regulation, but we’ll see if the SEC/US Attorneys agree.

Being cynical, I'd assume the "help" they offer is more likely to be stock market manipulation than disclosure of material information.

That's incorrect for these style of calls. The help is more akin to marketing - the company is arguing that they are doing better than the analyst thinks, and the analyst's company is offering their help to explain that to them and to other analysts.

That's exactly what I meant. They are not necessarily disclosing real information, they are trying to increase the stock price.

That isn't what stock market manipulation[1] means.

  Market manipulation may involve techniques including:
    Spreading false or misleading information about a company;
    Engaging in a series of transactions to make a security appear more actively traded; and
    Rigging quotes, prices, or trades to make it look like there is more or less demand for a security than is the case.

Presenting real information in a way that makes it more clear to investors is absolutely not market manipulation, and no interested party would ever claim otherwise.

[1] https://www.investor.gov/additional-resources/general-resour...

FWIW, my hunch is lots of information gets shared that the SEC doesn’t know about.

As long as breaking regulation is on average profitable the market dictates that regulation will be broken.

So depending on the risk/reward it most certainly can happen.

It makes me smile that you would ask this.

Where they aware everyone got bailed out in 2008, with nearly zero consequences?

The regulation you are expecting does not exist, in practice. Yes they wrote it down in a book. No, it's not real. It's as though I'm in a world of finance believers and I'm a finance atheist.

It does not exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com