• Ingrid

    Hello, meanwhile many companies show their estimates on their website. Have a look to Georg Fischer http://www.georgfischer.com/628/652/654/5963.asp.

    Or also look to MAN http://www.man.de/MAN/en/Investor_Relations/MAN-Aktie/Analystenschaetzungen/

    Important is, that the content comes from the original source/plattform. In the case of “aktiencheck” I assume this is not the original source and writers/students transcript the original source. Mistakes are programmed. Listed companies are responsible for their webpage content – so any transcription might become a “legal bomb”. This can be the reason why you will not find it also on RWE webpage.

  • http://www.irwebreport.com/ Dominic Jones

    Hi Ingrid,

    A lot of companies in the U.S. and elsewhere include earnings estimates, but these are not as useful as understanding the reasoning behind those estimates.

    The summaries in the email are in fact posted on the company’s website. I posted a link to them above.

    While the translation isn’t the best, it’s better than a machine translation that I get if I transcribe the German using Google Translate or Systran. And since they’re attributing the source, I don’t see errors as a problem.

    I much rather get the information than be without it. Like most people investing in stocks, I’m smart enough know that analysts are wrong most of the time. Still, I appreciate knowing what they’re saying. Have you ever heard an investor complain about having too much information? ;-)

  • http://www.irwebreport.com/ Dominic Jones

    But those examples you provide are nice estimates. The MAN ones would be better if they were translated. My German isn’t that good.

  • http://RWE Ingrid

    Hi Jones,

    of course investors should know everything about the company – they are the owners! Not management and IR departments.))

    But the big missunderstanding in “just adding different estimates” – even in full text is that (believe me!) the last (!) estmate will move the market. The one who shouted loudest and is most republished on company webpages, newspapers or agencies.

    And this is real bad (as you also mentioned: most analysts are wrong or act in their own interesst..and in cases where their employer – the bank – owns own positions.) As investor I can only follow estimations if I have the average or medium of ALL estimates of a certain period. Anything else is eyewash and not real serious in my eyes.

    If we additional consider that a company in many cases is not able to deliver all relevant estimates or make sure that they are “intime”, the average/medium will not real “break” the general forcast or the general direction.

    Companies are forced to do things correct. Here is my critical point. But – I assume it is your job to enlighten IR departments – how to communicate in a correct, open and legal way.

  • http://www.irwebreport.com/ Dominic Jones

    Ingrid,

    I don’t understand what the problem is with this from your perspective. They’re just telling me what analysts have been saying. They also post estimates separately on their site, which I don’t really care about more than knowing if they beat or miss.

    Perhaps the issue is that they compile the estimates themselves from 50 different analysts rather than use those compiled by a service provider. That’s unusual, but again it doesn’t really bother me if the estimates are compiled by RWE or FirstCall or FactSet or whoever.

    All I know is that they are going out of their way to keep their shareholders informed about what is being said about them by analysts. And, honestly, I can’t help but think that reflects very positively on them.

    Are they taking a risk doing so? Yes, in a couple of ways. First, sentiment could sour and they could soon be sending me only news of downgrades. Based on past experience, that’s exactly what they’ll do if sentiment does change. As a result, I’ll trust them more.

    Could they get something wrong? Yes. But since I’m only using the information for my own interest and not for trading decisions, it would not be a big deal if they did get something wrong.

    I guess I’m just thinking that if you are going to make trading decisions based on analyst recommendations, then you would use Bloomberg and the like and not a corporate website. I’m just trying to be realistic about who is using the information and why they are using it.

  • http://www.irwebreport.com/ Dominic Jones

    This is why we hardly ever post examples of good practice. Because something will always go wrong or someone will see a problem. Right now, the page on RWE’s website is down due to too much traffic!

    On the upside, it’s nice to think IR Web Report can “slashdot” IR websites.

    Update: OK, it’s back now.

  • Derek

    nice slashdot effect, Jones. Akin to a Digg effect in reverse.

  • http://www.irwebreport.com/ Dominic Jones

    Derek,

    Ha, it would be nice to get Digged/Dugg once in a while, but it has never happened and probably never will. Far too peripheral.

  • http://www.irwebreport.com/ Dominic Jones

    All of this terminology talk reminds of the fact that the American Dialect Society chose “subprime” as their word of the year, beating out “Facebook.”

    So perhaps our chances of being Dugg are not that remote.

  • Paul

    Mr Jones, you wrote:
    “Could they get something wrong? Yes. But since I’m only using the information for my own interest and not for trading decisions, it would not be a big deal if they did get something wrong.”

    Your tolerance and forgiveness are admirable. But here in the litigious US of A, some investors do rely, at least in part, on analyst recommendations for their trading decisions. Or, more to the point, they say they rely very heavily on the reports that turned out to be wrong when they are testifying in courtrooms following their unfavorable trades.
    I recognize that all communications involve risk. And I agree that investors are better served with more information. But I would also prefer that analysts, not companies, decide who gets to read their reports, in the hope that more people will pay for them and more analysts will be employed.

  • http://www.irwebreport.com/ Dominic Jones

    Paul,

    By the company getting something wrong, I mean poorly written translations of German to English. Besides, anyone who relies on summary information from an analyst note a week old only has themselves to blame if they lose money. Frankly, I’ve never met someone that stupid who knows the difference between a stock and a bond. If they don’t then, as far as I’m concerned, their brokers are not doing their jobs keeping them from blowing their money, and that includes online-only brokerages. I’ve always said the suitability rule should never have been dropped for online only brokers (but that’s another story).

    As for analysts rather than companies deciding who gets their work, I couldn’t agree more. Analysts work hard and deserve to be paid. However, in this case, the company is sending me highlights long after the fact. This has no more value than background, and is in effect free advertising for the analysts and their firms. Much less harmful to analysts than what is pushed out via proprietary systems like Thomson and Bloomberg in near real time.

    I think that most companies and IROs would never do what RWE does — even if regulators allowed or encouraged it. They’d be afraid. They wouldn’t want to send information to investors that is negative about their firms.

    And that’s all the more reason regulators *should* permit it, so that investors can more easily identify which companies are more trustworthy and transparent.

    Right now, everyone hides behind this idea that linking to or re-posting analysis or commentary from third parties is not possible under the current regulatory framework. And, for all practical purposes, it is extremely murky what you can and cannot do. And as you say, the plaintiffs bar can have a field day with this stuff. So let’s provide some kind of safe harbor. Spell out clearly what you can and cannot do, in the interests of investor protection.

    The only winners under the current state of affairs are companies with something to hide. I can’t see why analysts and regulators would want to side with those sorts of companies.