Be Prepared by Thinking Critically

Regardless of the outcome of Sino-Forest matter, the situation provides an opportunity for IR professionals and management teams to realize that too often we tend to only focus on the strengths of a company we are working with, especially when everything is rosy with great results, healthy share price and happy investors.  We can forget to think critically, ask the tough questions and identify the potential weaknesses that should be addressed or anticipated and prepare well thought out answers that aren’t dismissive. 

In short, as IR practitioners we should endeavor to think like analysts.  I recently read an article that stated Jack in the Box’s IR Carol DiRaimo is the industry’s best because “She is the world’s number one best analyst on Jack in the Box – possibly in the whole fast food restaurant industry. No wonder investors love her.”

There are a number of steps companies can take to understand potential shortcomings:

  • When reaching out to analysts, institutional investors, retail brokers and investment bankers for regular feedback, don’t be satisfied with just positive responses.  Push for some constructive criticisms and for concerns regarding any potential issues.
  • Don’t automatically dismiss outliers as “crackpots”.
  • Conduct your own critical analysis of your Company to determine additional potential areas of vulnerability. 
  • Discuss possible implications of developments in any related industry or company news.

Once the areas of potential vulnerability are identified, you can then proactively craft strategies to address and either correct or mitigate the concerns. 

We can use the Sino-Forest situation as a reminder of how fast sentiment changes and how dangerous it can be not anticipating those tough questions.  After all, today’s outlier view can be tomorrow’s prevailing investor sentiment.

- Philip Dale, Account Executive, China Group

Who is providing guidance?

Equicom recently completed a study of the guidance practices of every TSX-listed technology company above $20 million in market capitalization.  A total of 59 issuers were included.

Highlights of the study:

  • 22 of the 59 tech companies (37%) provide at least some forward-looking guidance – defined as specific, quantifiable projections.
  • 21 of these 22 companies offer revenue guidance, 12 guide on earnings, 5 guide on gross margins, 5 guide on EBITDA, and 10 provide guidance on some other measure.
  • 13 provide annual guidance, 7 quarterly, and 2 both annual and quarterly.
  • Among the 15 companies above $300 million in market cap, 60% provide guidance.  Below $300 million, only 30% of the 44 companies do so.
  • 77% (10 of 13) of those whose shares are also listed on NASDAQ or NYSE provide guidance, compared to 33% of the remaining issuers.

The choice of whether or not to provide guidance is one of the most significant investor relations decisions a public company makes, and it should not be taken lightly.  Guidance can improve visibility and transparency, but companies who provide it also take on new potential risks and disclosure obligations.

Whether it makes sense to provide guidance depends on the unique circumstances of each company.  Factors that may influence the decision include the following:

  • How much visibility do you have into your upcoming results?  Can you make projections with a reasonable degree of confidence?
  • How many analysts are covering you?  Are their estimates reasonable?  Are some of the estimates widely divergent?
  • Do you have reason to believe investor expectations of your future performance are significantly different than what you are likely to achieve?
  • Are your peers (i.e. competitors, or close comparables) providing guidance?  Investors could reach negative conclusions if it appears you have less visibility into your results than your peers do.

For technology issuers, benchmarking against other companies in the sector provides a useful starting point for the guidance discussion.

To access the full report, please click here.

 

- Jeff Codispodi, Vice President, Technology Practice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TMX Group Equity Financing Statistics - June 2011

The TMX Group today announced its financing activity on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) and TSX Venture Exchange (TSX-V) for June 2011.  Here are some of the highlights:

TSX:

-         31 new issuers during June 2011, a 121% increase over June 2010

-         20 IPOs during the month compared to only 7 in June 2010

-         Total financings raised during the month were up 129% over May 2011

TSX-V:

-         20 new issuers during June 2011 compared to 11 listings in June 2010

-         Total financings increased by 96% over June 2010

-         6 graduations to the TSX

Issuer market capitalization on both Exchanges continued to exceed 2010 levels.

To view the full report, please visit http://www.tmx.com/en/pdf/month_stats/FinancingStats_June11.pdf.

TMX Group Consolidated Trading Statistics - June 2011

The TMX Group Inc. announced today June 2011 trading statistics for its diversified group of exchanges – Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX), TSX Venture Exchange (TSX-V), Montreal Exchange (MX) and Natural Gas Exchange (NGX).  Here are some of the highlights:

-         MX achieved a monthly volume record in June 2011 with 6,164,764 contracts traded. MX also set a new quarterly trading record in Q2 2011 with 16,269,612 contracts traded.

-         Volume on MX increased by 13% over May 2011 and was up 53% compared to the same month last year.

-         Trading volume on TSX increased by 6% over May 2011, and was up 7% compared to the same month a year earlier.

-         TSX-V saw year-over-year increases in both transactions and volume in June 2011, with increases of 99% and 2% respectively.

-        Total energy volume on NGX was up 9% over May 2011, though was down 24% compared to June 2010.

For the full report, please visit http://www.tmx.com/en/pdf/month_stats/TradingStats_June11.pdf.