Social Media, the SEC and Corporate Disclosure – a Wobbly Three Legged Stool

I’m always surprised by it, but it turns out that some people actually read what I write. In my last post I wrote about the practical implications of the SEC’s recent Netflix social media investigation. In a nutshell, here’s what I said:

“…the release basically establishes a safe harbor for the use of social media which investor relations departments should waste no time in establishing as a prudent risk management tool. The SEC has said that companies should take steps to alert the market about which forms of communications a company intends to use for dissemination of material, non-public information. Therefore, adding language to a company’s web site and press releases to the effect that the company may from time to time use social media sites to disclose important information would seem to be the prudent thing to do.”

Shortly thereafter I received an email from Broc Romanek at TheCorporateCounsel.net (www.thecorporatecounsel.net) explaining his take on the issues at hand. I have a great deal of respect for Broc and will readily admit that he knows more about the ins and outs of how the Securities and Exchange Commission works and thinks about issues than I do. On the other hand, I’ve spent the bulk of my career inside public corporations and have a pretty good feel for that particular viewpoint.  I’ve reproduced (with Broc’s permission) the email exchange below because I think it is a good illustration of the two points of view on this subject.

John – on your blog about the SEC’s guidance, the CYA approach actually is problematic. As borne out on my webcast on this topic last week, I hear that the SEC Staff is not happy with those companies announcing a bevy of SM channels for which they have no real intention of using them as investor communication venues. And investors probably don’t want to be forced to track a bevy of channels for which the company doesn’t intend to provide useful info for them. It’s a loser on both fronts.

thx, broc

Broc:

I recognize that it's problematic, but it is a problem the SEC created. If I was a general counsel, and I had the opportunity to create one more layer of insulation from Reg FD claims, I would grab it. Fear of Reg FD retroactive enforcement is a giant bugaboo for many companies, so doing everything you can to lower the chance that the SEC will open an investigation makes sense.

From an investor's standpoint it is a real headache to follow multiple feeds, but most investor relations departments will take the view that it is not their job to make the analysts' job easier.

I think the CYA approach only works if the social media site is widely followed and qualifies as a recognized channel of distribution, but as more companies use social media, and CEOs become more comfortable with blogging & posting, there has got to be a way to facilitate open communication without constant fear that you will wander into the Reg FD quagmire.

John

John: I believe there is way too much paranoia about Reg FD compliance. Just because a statement may be Reg FD compliant – because a CYA channel was created – it isn’t insulated from a 10b-5 claim that the statement was misleading or omitted something, which will be the more likely result – and much more serious result – when something “material” is posted on a SM channel, particularly Twitter since it is limited to just 140 characters.

Broc

I’m not sure what all the implications of this social media stuff are, but this is probably a good illustration of the law of unintended consequences relating to governmental regulation. The SEC says its OK to use social media to disclose material non-public information if it qualifies as a “recognized channel of distribution” for communicating with their investors, but then is not happy when companies announce they intend to use them. Companies on the other hand, see this as a way to add a layer of protection so they don’t wind up in the SEC’s crosshairs when their CEO either gets carried away when writing a blog or Facebook post or writes something that they genuinely believe is not material as Reed Hastings of Netflix did.

The point of all of this should be to enhance and facilitate the flow of information to investors and allowing social media to serve as a recognized channel of distribution will help accomplish this. 

The Practical Implication of the SEC’s Netflix Social Media Investigation

Investor relations Musings has been on hiatus over the past five months as various items from my personal life – selling a house, moving back to the Chicago area, buying a new house, finishing my teaching at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University – have conspired to keep me from doing much writing. However, now I’m back to add my two cents to whatever investor relations topics catch my fancy.

In the period during which I’ve been silent, perhaps the most interesting investor relations development has been the SEC’s report of investigation regarding Netflix. You may recall that Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix, used of his personal Facebook page to disclose that Netflix had exceeded 1 billion hours of viewing during a single month and the SEC investigated whether this constituted a violation of Regulation Fair Disclosure. The case presented a number of interesting issues. First, there was the  threshold question of whether an internal company metric such as viewing hours should be considered material, when company revenue was based on fixed subscriber fees, not viewing hours. Second, the case presented a great example of how a company, by talking about an internal company metric such as viewing hours in both public documents such as press releases and shareholder letters, and in less public documents such as blogs and Facebook pages, builds a case for the SEC that the information is in fact material. (This is a great example of how trying to be transparent can get you into trouble with regulators, but that is a topic for another day.) 

However, the SEC sidestepped these issues by giving Reed Hastings and Netflix a pass on any regulatory sanctions and using the investigation to issue guidelines on the dissemination of material non-public information through social media sites. In a nutshell, the SEC said you can do it, as long as you tell investors where to look and your social media sites qualify as a “recognized channel of distribution” for communicating with their investors. 

From my point of view, the release basically establishes a safe harbor for the use of social media which investor relations departments should waste no time in establishing as a prudent risk management tool. The SEC has said that companies should take steps to alert the market about which forms of communications a company intends to use for dissemination of material, non-public information. Therefore, adding language to a company’s web site and press releases to the effect that the company may from time to time use social media sites to disclose important information would seem to be the prudent thing to do. For example, here’s what General Electric said in its first quarter 2013 earnings release: 

“GE’s Investor Relations website at www.ge.com/investor and our corporate blog at www.gereports.com, as well as GE’s Facebook page and Twitter accounts, contain a significant amount of information about GE, including financial and other information for investors. GE encourages investors to visit these websites from time to time, as information is updated and new information is posted.”

For most companies the point of this statement would not be to establish social media as their principal points of disclosure, but rather to insulate them in the event some important piece of information slips out in a twitter, Facebook or blog post. Remember, what is considered material, non-public information is determined with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

One Tweet Over the Line - Social Media, Investor Relations and Common Sense

Occasionally a sacrifice must be made to the gods of new technology. That is why innovation is sometimes referred to as “the bleeding edge”.  The latest cautionary tale about the brave new world of social media just happens to be about Gene Morphis, the now former CFO of Francesca’s Holdings, a public company, who used Facebook and Twitter to make comments about company and board activities and got fired for his comments.

We have been living with social media for a number of years now, so perhaps it’s not exactly leading edge, but in areas touching upon investor relations, companies have been late adopters, so there is not a lot of precedence to guide people. However, there are two touchstones people should use when putting out blogs, tweets and other social media postings.

First, consider what the Securities and Exchange Commission has said on the subject. To put it plainly, the SEC has stated that that statements made by a company, or anyone who could be considered as speaking for the company, must comply with all of the requirements and restrictions of the securities laws. That means that you must be truthful, complete and not misleading in any statements you make. You also have to comply with the requirements of Reg. FD, and if your blog or twitter feed doesn’t qualify as a broad based distribution method (and most probably do not) then you cannot use it to release material non-public information.

The second item to take into consideration in making social media comments about your company is plain old common sense. One way to test what you want to put in a blog or twitter post is to ask yourself, “Is this something I would be comfortable saying to a room full of equity analysts?” If not, then don’t put it out on the Internet where everyone can see it. This is not rocket science, but there seems to be a switch that gets flipped when some people get on the computer and start typing. People seem to think they can say anything and not be held to the consequences. Who can forget John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods making derogatory postings on a discussion board about a company Whole Foods later acquired? (As an aside, Mackey appears to have learned from his missteps as he now has a blog on the Whole Foods web site which gives you good insight into the way he thinks about his business.)

In the case in question, there are a number of statements Mr. Morphis made that are just plain dumb, and probably were reason enough to get him fired by a CEO and Board of Directors lacking in a sense of humor. One example was on March 6th when he said, “Dinner w/Board tonite. Used to be fun. Now one must be on guard every second." But the post that, in my view, he deserves to get fired for was made the following day when he wrote, "Board meeting. Good numbers=Happy Board." Given that the quarterly earnings were not released until March 13, it appears to me that he was making a comment on the upcoming quarterly earnings.  It violates both of the considerations I discuss above: it appears to disclose material non-public information in a selective manner, and it is something that even the most junior investor relations officer would have the common sense not to say. It is clearly, to misquote an old Brewer & Shipley song, one tweet over the line.

Can’t This Gang Shoot Straight?

The Securities and Exchange Commission used to be one of the most respected federal agencies in Washington. Some would argue that this is a low barrier to overcome, but nevertheless, the SEC was for many years considered a well run agency that, by and large, did what it was supposed to, and helped to give the United States the best and most transparent capital markets in the world. Alas, things have changed and now it seems that the SEC is the agency that can’t seem to get it right.

The most recent stumbles have come over the fact that the SEC Chairwoman, Mary Shapiro, who was given a mandate by President Obama to strengthen enforcement, failed to disclose to her fellow commissioners a conflict of interest involving the agency’s former top lawyer, David Becker. According to the SEC Inspector General’s report, it seems that Mr. Becker stood to have a financial interest in the settlement of the Bernie Madoff fraud case, and although he disclosed the potential conflict, Ms. Shapiro stayed silent on it, even allowing her fellow commissioners to vote on how to divide up the Madoff assets without telling them how their top lawyer might potentially benefit from the decision.

Not only that, but the Inspector General’s report also brings to light the fact that the SEC decided not to have Mr. Becker testify before Congress for fear that his conflict of interest would come to light. And this is from the agency that is charged with “full and fair disclosure” for investors.

This is bad enough, but it come after a series of other blunders over recent years that make you wonder if the agency has lost its way. Most notably, this is the agency, charged with protecting investors, that actively ignored the pleas of Harry Markopolos to investigate the returns being generated by Bernie Madoff, which turned out to be the biggest ponzi scheme in history.

More recently, and somewhat more mundanely, proxy access, a pet SEC project that would allow shareholders the ability to nominate directors using a company’s own proxy materials, was struck down by the Federal Appeals Court for the District of Columbia. According to the appeals court, the SEC had “inconsistently and opportunistically framed the costs and benefits of the rule; failed adequately to quantify the certain costs or to explain why those costs could not be quantified; neglected to support its predictive judgments; contradicted itself; and failed to respond to substantial problems raised by commenters.” Further, the court said there is “good reason to believe that institutional investors with special interests” – such as unions and pension funds -- would use the proxy access rules to advance their own issues and chided the SEC for “ducking serious evaluation of the costs that could be imposed” by shareholders representing special interests. It certainly doesn’t sound as if the Court of Appeals thought the SEC was taking a fair and balanced approach towards rule making in this instance.

And finally, how about the $557 million lease the SEC entered into without competitive bidding, which the agency can’t afford and doesn’t need because the underlying assumptions for the space were incorrect. Never mind that Commissioner Shapiro approved the lease in a 10 minute unscheduled meeting and later said that “The agency made a terrible mistake here,” and “I view myself as being ultimately responsible.” In most corporations if you were responsible for a $557 million mistake, you’d be fired, or maybe the SEC would investigate you…