Are You Talking About What You Want to Say or What Your Investors Want to Know?

I confess that I’m not an avid reader of much of what gets churned out in the business press by the so-called experts. I readily admit that this is somewhat of a contradiction in me, because I want people to read what I write about in my area of expertise, but let’s face it, there’s a lot of crud out there. Most business writers seem to approach their subject as if it were the key component to business success. If their readers would simply follow their cookbook formula, everything would be peachy. If only life were so simple. So I tend to restrict my reading to The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Economist and a few other assorted publications.

One of the other assorted publications I tend to pay attention to is the McKinsey Quarterly, and it is an article there that spurs me to write today. The article, which was published early in October, 2013, is entitled “How B2B companies talk past their customers” and it examines the gap between the messages that suppliers send to their customers and what their customers really want to know. The article struck me as particularly germane to investor relations because, stripped to its bare essentials, IR is a business-to-business marketing effort where companies present the reasons to own their stock to sophisticated purchasing managers who are interested in buying a commodity that will benefit their customers, such as mutual fund investors or pension managers.

The article, which is available at http://www.mckinsey.com/insights, looked at how companies in the business-to-business sector positioned their brands and came up with a list of 13 broad themes and topic areas ranging from the practical (low prices) to the lofty (corporate social responsibility). Then the authors turned around and asked customers how important they thought each theme was in evaluating the brand. What they found was that there was an almost complete mismatch between what companies were saying and what customers thought was important.

This piece of research is instructive to investor relations because IR departments are formulating brand messages all the time, whether it’s in an investor presentation or an annual report, yet in my experience, the vast majority of all such messages are put together based upon what the company wants to say, not what investors want to hear.

So here’s a radical thought. The next time you put together a presentation, stop and think about what investors want and need to hear. This shouldn’t be terribly difficult, as IR departments are constantly bombarded by questions from analysts and good investor relations practice dictates that you should track the types of questions being asked. The data should be there – you simply have to integrate it into your message.

At the end of the day, it comes down to a relatively simple rule of communications – know your audience. Unfortunately, it is a rule that is often overlooked when polishing IR presentations and annual reports.

Lights! Camera! Earnings Call!!

Lets face it – earnings calls are boring. Lawyers will tell you that this is a good thing because you are far less likely to get sued or have regulators come down on you if you don’t do anything splashy. So for most companies the earnings conference call has evolved into an elaborate kabuki theater consisting of 20 – 25 minutes of prepared remarks followed by 25 – 30 minutes of questions from analysts.

The prepared remarks are the worst – many times all you get is a regurgitation of the earnings press release, proving only that the CEO and CFO can read. This is because lawyers, ever fearful of Reg. FD, are reluctant to allow even the smallest snippets of information to vary from what has been “broadly disseminated” in a press release format. So you wind up with a highly paid executive reading dishwater dull financial information to analysts and investors who have already read the press release and put the numbers in their models. My guess is that with earnings season being notoriously busy, most analysts are only listening with half an ear to the prepared remarks while they multi-task on other things.

The question and answer sessions are a bit more interesting, if only because there is some uncertainty at work, both in the questions that are asked and the answers given by executives. Keep in mind however, that companies have a system for controlling who gets to ask questions, and when on the call the questioner will appear. Thus invariably, the company’s favorite analyst (read “biggest booster”) will get the cherished first question position, and the question is likely to be one that management has no difficulty answering. Thus analysts are often reduced to the role of the old Kremlin watchers, where  more information is to be gleaned from nuance, voice tone and innuendo than in the party line answers executives spout.

Now, however, the earnings call may be starting to evolve. Last week Yahoo’s CEO and CFO presented a live webcast of its second quarter earnings call. In most respects, their webcast was just like an earnings call, except you could see the executives. Thus, in addition to voice tone and inflection, analysts and investors could also judge body language. This also means that, unless it was done off camera, no one could surreptitiously slip answers to the executives. This is perhaps a small step, but it does add a few more points that investors can use in judging management.

A few days later, Netflix also broke with the typical earnings call with a slightly different format. In their presentation, which was conducted on Google Hangout via webcam and posted to YouTube, Netflix dispensed with the prepared remarks entirely and went directly to questions and answers. This is probably a good development, as it avoids needless repetition of financial information. The questions were compiled beforehand and posed to management by a reporter and an analyst. This may be a less salutary development, as it favors a single analyst and reporter, and while the company says that it did not see the questions beforehand, this process may be open to manipulation. In addition, because many of the questions were composites, there was no attribution of questions to any particular analyst, which I’m sure did not please the sell side community.

In general, both presentations were well received as bringing something new to the staid conference call format. I can only hope that more companies start to push the envelope in order to make things more interesting and to stand out from the crowd. Because, with disclosure to investors, as with classical economics, more is better - at least until you get to the point of disutility…

A Hypothetical Model to Help in Thinking About the Value of Investor Relations

(Author's Note: A version of this post originally appeared on the web site Corporate Eye. I liked it so much that I am recycling it here.)

People in the academic world are big on constructing models to prove their financial theories. These hypothetical constructs blithely disregard such things as taxes, transaction costs and the fact that emotional, sometimes illogical humans are part of the market process. They don’t allow messy reality to interfere with their elegant equations, but the models are useful in highlighting a theory or hypothesis. Many an academic prize (and even some Nobel Prizes) has been won by building explanatory models that make huge assumptions and leaps of faith. In fact, my favorite quote about finance makes a nod to this as it relates to the Efficient Market Hypothesis. Fischer Black, a former Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which sits next to the Charles River in Cambridge, Massachusetts, took a job with Goldman Sachs in New York, situated next to the Hudson River. After working there for a while, he was heard to remark, “Markets look a lot less efficient from the banks of the Hudson than from the banks of the Charles”.[1]

As I consider myself only a quasi-academic – that is, I teach but I don’t engage in any of the pedantic research that clogs the academic financial journals (plus, I have not yet sewn patches on the elbows of my tweed jacket, nor have I taken up smoking a pipe), I thought I would serve up for the benefit of my readers a theoretical quasi-model to help think about the value of investor relations. Recognizing that investor relations is a discipline that involves real people and information, I will keep it quasi-simple.

Start by thinking of two theoretical firms, both in the same industry and each performing exactly the same in financial terms. That is to say, according to their past performances, their growth rates are similar, their rates of return do not differ in any material way and they serve the same customer base. Firm A discloses exactly what is required by the regulations, and nothing more. It makes no effort to explain its more complicated accounting treatments and it does not reveal anything about its strategy or future plans. It does not respond to investor inquiries, does not make management available to investors and analysts, and does not present at any industry conferences. In short, beyond the regulatory filings it makes, it remains silent.

Firm B on the other hand, tries to be as open and transparent as possible, going beyond the regulatory disclosure requirements to explain its business and strategy, meeting with investors and regularly presenting at industry conferences. They keep up a steady stream of information that keeps investors informed on a timely basis, not just on a regulatory filing basis.

The question to be asked then, is under that hypothetical situation, should Firm B get a higher valuation than Firm A? I submit that under these conditions, it is highly likely that a premium will be attached to the valuation of Firm B, compared to Firm A. There are several reasons for this, chief of which is that investors will view the greater transparency into operations and management thinking about the future as enabling them to make better estimates about future cash flows. Secondly, the cost to investors of acquiring information has been lowered by Firm B, and this should show up in their valuation. Third, the amount of information asymmetry between the company and the investors has been lowered by Firm B, which should also be reflected in a higher valuation. Finally, although the information Firm B extends beyond that required by the regulations is not material in any one piece, in the aggregate it may help in the assembly of a mosaic of information that may be material to investors.

Unfortunately, I do not have an elegant equation to quantify the value of the of these investor relations activities. I do think it suggests however, that at least for companies where information is widely disseminated, much of the value in investor relations is in the selection and disclosure of information beyond what is required by regulation.

Now, if you want to nominate me for an academic prize, be my guest. Of course, with my luck it will turn out to be a quasi-prize…

---

[1] As quoted in Against the Gods by Peter L. Bernstein.

Practicing Safe Presentations

How many times have you been at a conference and seen a corporate investor presentation that begins something like this:

“Good morning. I’m Joe Terrific, CEO of Godzilla Industries, and I’m here to bring you up to date on all the great things we’re doing. (Pause while he moves rapidly from the title slide, past the safe harbor slide to the beginning slide describing the business.) Here at Godzilla Industries…”

In other words, the safe harbor statement slide is up on the screen fleetingly, but not referred to verbally. The thinking being that they’ve shown the disclaimer about forward-looking statements, all the investors in the room are sophisticated institutional investors and know that when a company makes projections and statements about the future things don’t always turn out the way the company thinks they will. The requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995 have been met, right?

Well, maybe not.

A recent ruling by a federal trial court for the Western District of Washington has underlined the need for companies to make sure they verbally reference the safe harbor disclaimer. The case is In re Coinstar Securities Litigation, Case No. C11-133 MJP (W.D. Washington Oct. 6, 2011) and all practitioners of investor relations should take notice of it.

The case involved allegations that on various occasions the management of Coinstar made projections and statements about future expectations that did not come to fruition. As happens in these cases, the lawyers for Coinstar made a motion to dismiss the complaint. This is a motion made early in the proceedings that has the effect of cutting off the litigation before the really big legal bills start to pile up. It is done before pre-trial discovery takes place, which is when a plaintiff can drive a company to distraction by forcing it to produce thousands of pages of documents and produce members of management for time-consuming depositions. Once discovery starts, the chances of the plaintiff wringing a settlement out of the company go way up, as it is often cheaper to settle than to pay hefty lawyers fees for several years running while lawyers pore over boxcar loads of documents in the hope of turning up a smoking gun, with the Russian roulette of a jury trial lurking in the background.

In the Coinstar case, one of the allegations made in the complaint was that forward- looking statements made by company management at an investor conference were false or misleading. In making the allegation, the plaintiffs relied upon a transcript of the presentation, and because the transcript contained no reference to the cautionary language on the company’s presentation slides, the court ruled that for purposes of a motion to dismiss, they could not take notice of something that wasn’t in the record and therefore the lawsuit could proceed on those allegations.

This does not mean that Coinstar lost the lawsuit, but it does mean that the lawsuit can continue and move into the pretrial discovery phase, which is almost as bad as losing. Coinstar did not accompany their safe harbor slide with a simple statement such as, “Statements made in the course of today’s presentation may contain forward-looking information and actual results may differ materially from what we are presenting today. The slide you now see gives you more information on the assumptions and factors we consider in making those forward looking statements and where to go to get more information on our risk factors.” As a result, they have subjected themselves to, at a minimum, additional and unnecessary legal bills, and at worst, the potential of a large settlement or jury award.

So today’s lesson is, just because the safe harbor slide is in every presentation, and everyone has heard it dozens of times before, doesn’t mean that a trial judge will assume investors have heard about it. Practice safe presentations - always refer to the safe harbor statement and slide.

Do You Think You Could Make That More Boring?

Who ever said that an investor presentation has to be boring? (I exclude from this question the lawyers, who as a default position, always feel that boring and incomprehensible is safer than exciting and interesting.)

I was at an investor conference last month and took the opportunity to sit in on several presentations. I think that most of the company presenters must have been listening to their lawyers. After about two presentations I began to tune out because most of what I heard was pretty bland and uninteresting. It was as if the presenters had all gone to the Sgt. Joe Friday school of public speaking. They were determined to give “just the facts” in the most humdrum fashion possible. (For those of you too young to remember, Sgt. Joe Friday was the principal character in the TV drama Dragnet who gave new meaning to the term poker-faced.)

Honestly, how can you expect an investor to get excited about a stock if the company CEO doesn’t show some enthusiasm when talking about the company? Yet that is exactly what I saw at the conference. This was especially true at the beginning of most presentations, when the speaker should be working the hardest to capture the interest of the audience, yet what I often heard was the recitation of bare bones facts about the company without a lot of context to help investors understand the company’s products and position within the industry.

The other major bone I have to pick about what I heard was that most companies thought their job was done when they had explained what their past activities had been. The implication of such a presentation is “Here’s what we’ve done in the past, now you can go ahead and make your own judgment about what we will do in the future without any help from us.” This is like saying that markets are static, conditions are not going to change and we are not working on any new products or markets. This, of course, is nonsense, as American companies and markets are predicated on growth and conditions change all the time. Further, financial theory 101 teaches that investors are buying your stock based upon the value of FUTURE cash flows, so why not give them some guidance about where you are going in the future? Hey, there’s a safe harbor statement about forward-looking statements in every presentation. Why not put it to good use?

All was not terrible, however. There were several successful and engaging speakers I saw at the conference. Generally, these successful speakers seemed to have two things in common. First, they got a little worked up about what their company was doing and what made their products and services unique. Secondly, they allowed some of their personality to come through. This is important because if you’ve ever read any of the surveys of investors and what they care about, quality of management is always high up the list. Yet if management is nothing more than a bland talking head, how can an investor be expected to make a qualitative judgment about them?

After all, who ever said, “I liked your presentation, but you could have been a bit more boring”?

Stand a Little Closer to the Podium… Coaching and Investor Relations

A short while ago a friend sent me a copy of an article in the New Yorker about coaching. We’re not talking here about improving your golf swing. Rather, the author of the article suggests that people in business could stand to benefit from having someone who is an expert observe and offer constructive criticism on how they perform routine tasks. The article can be found here: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/03/111003fa_fact_gawande

I was intrigued by the article, not only because I spend considerable time coaching first year MBA students on how to give business presentations, but also on the concept’s potential for improving investor relations activities. By its nature, investor relations involves repetitious activities that revolve around everything from how you talk on the phone, to investor presentations and quarterly earnings reporting. These are the exact type of activities that can benefit from coaching. And yet, in all my years of business, I have rarely seen anything that approaches coaching done outside of a seminar environment.

Take for example, your typical investor relations presentation given by a CEO. I’ve sat through literally hundreds of these throughout my career and most were less than memorable. Just a few things that we talk about with our students touching upon delivery, content and visuals could be pointed out to many CEOs:

Delivery – was the speaker enthusiastic when speaking to the investors? After all, if the CEO isn’t enthusiastic about the company, how can you expect investors to get excited?

Content – is the speaker able to place the company into an understandable framework that helps investors understand the value his company brings to the marketplace? I have seen any number of presentations where software and tech companies get so wrapped up in the technological aspects of their products that they fail to bring it down to the level where an investor can see how they can make money on the technology.

Visuals – how many times have you seen a screen full of bullet points that the speaker feels compelled to read? Worse yet, how about a balance sheet in 8 point type?

Business leaders of today have to be communicators, yet many of them could stand some improvement in their delivery. This is where coaching should come in, but rarely does. My guess is that most investor relations officers are loath to criticize their superiors. Which is too bad, because we can all stand some improvement. I know I’ve been practicing public speaking for over thirty years and there are still things I need to improve.

So here’s today’s practical tip: if IROs don’t want to tread on thin ice by critiquing executives, videotape them and let them review themselves. It helps if you give them a list of common errors to watch and listen for, such as vocal fillers, repetitive phrases, body language and eye contact. Then tell them to watch/ listen to the presentation four times:

First, listen and don’t watch. This lets the speaker focus on vocal qualities such as pitch, tone, speed, ums and ahhs, and if he was using his voice to tell listeners what was important.

Second, watch with no sound. This will draw attention to body language, eye contact and the annoying things the speaker may be doing with their hands.

Third, listen and watch the presentation to see if it all comes together in a coherent whole.

Fourth (for the brave), watch the presentation at double speed. This will really bring to the fore any annoying or quirky things the speaker tends to do, such as looking up at the ceiling, or performing a little dance step as he speaks.

Who knows, after watching themselves a few times, CEOs might get a little bit humbler.

Building a Good Investor Presentation

The company presentation to analysts is a staple of investor relations, yet it doesn’t get the type of analysis it deserves. I’m not talking here about whether or not your slides are any good or how well your chairman speaks in public. Rather, I’m talking here about the basic structure of how you convey the information about what your company is and how it operates. A good presentation can generate interest in your company, whereas a bad presentation may very well turn off investors. Presentations are further complicated by the fact that at any given conference, a company executive will be speaking to a spectrum of investors, ranging from those that know the company well to those who may never have heard of it before.

There are many ways to create a well thought out overview of company information for investors and I don’t claim to hold a patent on the only way to do things. What follows is my approach, worked out over thirty years of presenting to investors. It is designed to organize the flow of information you need to convey.

First, start with a structure that borrows from a common investor relations framework:

Past Performance + Perception of Future Performance = Stock Price.

In other words, investors analyze the value of a company’s stock by trying to project what it will do in the future, using what it has been able to accomplish in the past as a reality check. From this framework, it becomes clear that when speaking to investors, a company needs to address both where it’s been and where it’s going. While this may seem obvious, I have seen many presentations totally ignore one side or the other of the equation.

In order to impose some logical flow to the requirements of such a formula, it makes sense to break down the presentation into three basic building blocks of information: Who we are, What we’re currently doing and Where we’re going in the future. This format helps to keep the story on track while still retaining enough flexibility to be creative.

Who We Are: This is the foundation of the presentation. It should include basics on the company’s industry, position within the industry, market share, operating locations, history and culture. The art to doing this section correctly is to provide enough basic information so that someone new to the stock has a good grasp of what your business is, while providing sufficient new information to keep those familiar with your story interested. For example, if you are in the oil exploration business, the basic information you give out should not only include the basics of the segment of your industry, but would also include updated information on the number of rigs you might have in operation and new exploration sites.

What We Do: This is the section of the presentation where companies can talk about what makes them unique. Most companies have an overriding operating philosophy which drives them forward; for some, such as Wal-Mart, it is being the low cost operator, while for others, such as Apple, it’s an obsession with design excellence. As important in this section as the “what we do” is the “why we do it”. If you can convey to investors not only what you are good at doing, but also the driving force behind what you do, you begin to put some informational meat on the presentation.

Finally, Where We’re Going: This is probably the most crucial part of the presentation. Critical information areas include giving investors some insight into how your company plans to compete; opportunities for growth and profitability; how you view the future of your industry; and the unique products or service offerings you plan to use to set your company apart going forward. This should be where the good investor presentation distinguishes its company from other possible investments in an investor’s mind. Remember, sophisticated investors are looking at an investment in your company as a claim on the future cash flows of the company, so they have to have a good sense of where those cash flows may be coming from.

Interwoven into all of this, Dave Mossberg, my colleague at Three Part Advisors, would add, “The presentation should give the investor three compelling reasons to own the stock”. Investor relations being a consultative sale, rather than a hard sell, the art here is to make the compelling reasons obvious enough for a reasonably astute investor to grasp without hitting them between the eyes with a two by four. So if, at the end of the presentation, the investor can sum things up by saying something along the lines of: they have a great track record, industry leading technology and are growing rapidly in an industry segment that is poised for expansion, you will have accomplished your presentation objectives.

Not Too Hot, Not Too Cold, But Just Right

I had the privilege of speaking last week before the Austin- San Antonio chapter of NIRI. The topic was one of my favorites, Insights from Academia, or What I’ve Learned About Investor Relations by Teaching in a Business School. Every time I give the talk, it’s a chance to step back from the day-to-day activities that comprise investor relations and think about the process as a whole. This time when I gave the talk, I was struck by the need to achieve balance in what we do.

Those that are involved in investor relations recognize that in order to do it right, you need to combine skills from the disciplines of finance, marketing, law and communications. So there are a lot of factors at play. If one chooses to emphasize one factor over another the entire message can suffer. For example, if a press release is written where legal factors and accounting dominate, the result is a stilted document that tends to read like a SEC Form 10-K filing or a lawyer’s brief. In other words, something that’s deathly dull and uses language to obfuscate rather than clarify. Similarly, if the marketing and communications disciplines dominate, what you wind up with is a document that is more hype than substance and is bound to turn off your audience of sophisticated investors. The key to getting the message right is to balance the various factors.

One of the things I have learned from combing through business textbooks in preparing for my class on investor relations is that a catchy graphic helps to explain complex relationships. Couple that with the fact you almost can’t give a talk without powerpoint slides and I simply had to create a graphic to illustrate this point. So here it is – my attempt at capturing the need to combine all four disciplines in your investor relations message.

Of course, it’s one thing to understand the theory, it’s another thing entirely when you are trying to incorporate comments to your press release by the CFO, the General Counsel, the outside auditors and the communications department. This is where investor relations officers should think back to the Goldilocks story and say to themselves, “Not too much law, not too much marketing, but just right…” It’s at times like that I recommend you pull out the graphic to remind yourself what it is you are trying to achieve.

Social Media and Investor Relations Redux

Readers of this blog will know that I am somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to the use of social media in investor relations (and yes, I recognize the irony of that statement when written in a blog). It’s not that I think there is no use for twitter, linkedin and the other social media services, it just that they strike me as being over-hyped compared to the nitty gritty job of getting the basic message right. But I am here to report that even I can be convinced of the ways that social media can be helpful.

Earlier this week I was privileged to give a speech to the NIRI Houston chapter on my favorite topic, the intersection of academic disciplines and real world investor relations. Before the speech I was introduced to Catherine Crofton of Q4 Web Systems. It turns out that Q4 Web systems had agreed to sponsor the luncheon and Catherine was going to introduce me. As we chatted about investor relations issues before lunch, Catherine told me about a success story of one of their clients in using social media. It turns out their client, TVI Pacific Inc., launched a campaign to use social media in their investor relations program that, coupled with a good story, helped to raise the firm’s visibility with investors, resulting in improved trading volumes and stock price performance. Q4 Web Systems has written about the program on their blog, which can be found at

http://www.q4blog.com/2010/01/11/tvi-pacific-shares-roi-of-using-social-media-for-ir/.

As I thought through this example, it occurred to me that the company in question, TVI Pacific, was a micro cap company, and one of the big issues facing small cap companies is simply one of visibility. If you are a Fortune 500 company, visibility is not an issue; many sell side analysts cover you, you have a large established base of institutional shareholders and the media is focused on you. However, if you are a small cap company, just getting on the radar screen of many investors presents a problem: the sell side may not cover you at all, very few institutions may own you and you are thinly traded. In short, the markets are a whole lot less efficient when it comes to small caps, mostly it seems because the information does not get in front of the right investors.

There is actually some interesting academic research on this topic. The title of the paper is “Investor Relations, Firm Visibility and Investor Following” and was written by Brian Bushee of Wharton and Gregory Miller of the Harvard Business School. The paper finds that investor relations efforts to improve a small cap firm’s visibility result in better trading volumes and increases in institutional ownership and better valuations.

The interesting thing about the TVI Pacific case is that they used social media in the form of postings on Twitter, Facebook, Fliker, YouTube and Slideshare and links on their website. Slideshare is a new one on me, but it turns out there is a site that allows you to post and share your slide presentations. (For those of us who have had to sit through endless boring powerpoint presentations during meetings, this may seem a bit masochistic, but it seems to be a popular site. Who’d of thunk?)

So if you are a small cap stock in need of visibility, social media may be an additional set of tools an IR officer can use at very low cost, assuming you can get the company’s general counsel to sign off on the use of them.

And it also seems as though a certain cranky IR observer may have to wind up eating his words.

Yowzer! Step Right Up and Hear the Professor!

I’m happy to report that I will be speaking on February 15^th at the Houston NIRI chapter on the topic of “IR Insights from Academia: Does Any of That Fancy Theory Apply in a Real World Context?” This will be the second time I’ve given this talk, having successfully addressed the Dallas NIRI chapter last November (at least they said it was successful). For those interested in attending, details can be found on the NIRI Houston web site, http://www.niri-houston.org/Luncheon--1.html?ModKey=mk$clsc&LayoutID=7&EventID=95

I find the topic fascinating because it gives me a chance to talk about the intersection of theory and practice. Since leaving the corporate practice of IR and developing my investor relations class at Rice University, I’ve had the opportunity to step back from the day-to-day pressures of IR and really think about what it is IR practitioners do and how all of that fits into things that are taught in business school.

When you think about the discipline of investor relations, it incorporates aspects of marketing, communications, finance, law and the capital markets. Further, the audiences it affects go far beyond just investors to encompass employees, customers, suppliers, creditors, bond holders and governmental entities to name a few. When you throw into the mix that there are some schools of academic theory that hold that active investing and investor relations activities add no value, there’s quite a bit that can be discussed.

Just by way of a teaser for some of the topics I cover in the talk, here’s some of the theory versus real world that I cover:

Finance – most valuation models are constructed using discounted cash flow techniques and how they work has a significant impact on your company’s stock price. Beyond the modeling technique however, there lies a significant takeaway to think about.

Marketing – a lot of investor relations literature talks about targeting investors, but that is only one-third of the three crucial steps to marketing.

Communications – there is a lot of really bad IR communications out there, much of it in the form of PowerPoint slides. I look at examples from some of the biggest corporations in the U. S. (This section is the most fun.)

Law – lawyers are taught to think in a particular way, and regulatory lawyers have a unique take on that. As someone who practiced law for ten years, I attempt to bridge the communications gap between lawyers and IR practitioners.

If you are in the Houston area, I hope you can join me. If you are not in the Houston area, but are interested in having me come to a local NIRI chapter, please give me a call. I’m somewhat of an evangelist on bringing more academic rigor to investor relations, so there is no charge for the talk other than travel expenses.

Where Did You Say You Were Going?

I’ve said it before, but it bears saying again: investors buy a company’s stock because they believe they will receive a stream of cash flows in the future from the company. They only care about past performance of the company in so far as it gives them faith that the company will perform as they expect it to perform into the future. Analysts build their valuation models based upon future earnings, not past performance. So it’s surprising to me that companies don’t say more about what their plans are for the future – how they intend to make those future cash flows.

I would not want to make a general assertion about lack of forward looking information without any data, so I decided to do a quick sample of company presentations to see how much, on average, those presentations spoke to future plans. My search took me to the Internet to look for good examples of that staple of corporate communications, the PowerPoint slide show. If you go to investor conferences, almost every presenting company will accompany its speech with a slide deck illustrating their main points. What better way to quantify what companies are saying about their outlook for the future than by counting the number of slides they have shown to investors that contain points discussing the company’s future outlook. I thought it would be a relatively easy thing to go out and pull up the presentations of the various companies and analyze what I was interested in.

To my surprise, I found that it’s not quite so easy to go out on the Internet and find a representative sample of corporate investor presentations. In fact, what I found was that in a random sample of 20 large cap U. S. companies, only five companies (25%) posted their investor presentations from conferences. (I will admit that this is a small sample size, but you get what you pay for, and you’re getting this for free.)

In examining the presentations that I did find, it became obvious that companies were much more concerned with talking about past performance than future opportunity. My methodology was simple – I counted the total number of slides in a presentation and then counted the total number of slides that contained information concerning future operations. I tried to be overly generous in what I counted as a slide concerning the future, and any slide that had even a little bit of information about what a company intended to do going forward or the outlook for their products and markets was counted as being about the future.

What I found was that the percentage of forward looking slides in presentations ranged from a low of 6% to a high of 35%, with the average for all presentations being 20%. If we assume that the information being discussed generally follows in proportion to the slides in the presentation, this means that, on average, four-fifths of all information in presentations is about current or past activities. This is the equivalent of saying, “Not much new here; we’ll just make our money by continuing to do what we’ve always done”.

Now I will be the first to tell you that the bulk of all corporate profits come from continuing operations, but that doesn’t mean that those operations remain static. We operate in a dynamic economy - markets change; competitors react; new products are introduced; the economy impacts demand for the company’s products and services; and a host of other things mean that the future will not be the same as the past. Company presentations need to take these issues into account in order to give investors a clearer picture of where the company is headed.

In short, companies should spend a little bit more time and effort talking about where they’re going as opposed to where they have been. Because those future cash flows are a crucial component that investors use to value the stock.

Tell Them Why

Following on to last week’s post about what investor relations presentations can learn from jazz, this week I take my inspiration from a different pod cast, Ted Talks. Anyone who is interested in communications should listen (the pod casts are available on ITunes) or watch Ted Talks (http://www.ted.com/), where you can find some of the best and most passionate speakers on a wide variety of topics. The TED Talks speakers have the ability to grab and hold their audiences, and if you are in the business of communicating ideas, there is no better way to learn about the process than to watch speakers such as these.

The talk that caught my attention and which I think can be instructive for people trying to get their story across to investors was one by Simon Sinek, the author of a book entitled “Start With Why”. The talk, which I gather distills the main idea of his book, offered one overarching thought, which is “People don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it”. In a world where there are many competing products and services, the thing that distinguishes the winners and makes them appealing is the underlying passion that forms the core of their product or service. The example Sinek talked about is Apple and how they inform everything they do with a passion for combining technology, design and ease of use, but there are plenty of other examples out there. Everything Wal-Mart does is designed to deliver products to their customers at the lowest price possible. Toyota sells Lexus automobiles based upon a relentless pursuit of excellence. Whole Foods wants to deliver better and more wholesome foods.

When you start to think about this in the context of investors, who are purchasing the future stream of cash flows of your company, it starts to make eminent sense to bring to the fore the why of your company. Products, markets and service offerings change over time. Who your company is and why they do things in the manner they do changes far less often. Investors need to know what informs your basic philosophy and culture, because that is part of what they are buying: it goes into everything your company does.

Yet if you look at most investor presentations, what you find is that companies are good at telling what they do, but not why they do it. What they do is something that can be quantified or visualized. Why they do what they do is much less easy to explain. So my thought for the day is: the next time you are putting together an investor presentation about your company, stop and think about the why of your company. Is your motivation to be the very best at providing customer service, are you experts at solving technical engineering issues or perhaps you want to deliver the best combination of value and product offerings to consumers? Every company has a motivating factor and good investor relations dictates that it should be placed on display for investors to make a judgment about.

As for me, I’m passionate (and opinionated) about getting people to understand the principles of good investor relations.

What IR Presentations Can Learn from Jazz

I was working out the other day and listening to one of my new favorite podcasts, NPR’s Driveway Moments. The particular segment I was listening to featured an interview with the jazz musician Wynton Marsalis, who was explaining jazz to the uninitiated. I definitely fall into that category, as I don’t “get” most jazz. Several of the things Wynton Marsalis said caught my attention and made me think that there are some interesting parallels between some things we see in music and investor relations presentations.

Most investor presentations are set pieces: you’ve got a speaker, a set of PowerPoint slides and a bunch of information that gets disseminated over the course of 30 minutes. In this they resemble classical music. They follow a prescribed score and they don’t deviate. The speaker covers every last bullet point, just as the musicians play every note, and everyone feels safe and secure because they are on familiar ground. The speakers, similar to orchestral players, are almost interchangeable and it’s very hard to see any individuality or emotion.

This approach has some merit in that everyone navigates the treacherous shoals of regulation and potential litigation and (usually) nobody gets fired. The problem with the approach is that it’s boring and it’s not very good at getting investors excited about your company’s prospects. And investors are buying the future stream of earnings of your company, not its past deeds. Next time you’re at an investor conference, sit and listen to three or four presentations in a row. I guarantee that you will be numb at the end of the last speaker.

Contrast this with jazz. There is a structure with rhythm and melody, but there is also room for some improvisations and solos. The improvisations and solos have to fit within the framework – they don’t work if they don’t fit into the structure of the piece, but they also allow for the expression of talent and passion for the subject matter.

More passion is needed at investor presentations. Speakers should be allowed to get excited about their companies and what they’re doing. They should have a passion and a pride in their products and people and it should show through to the investing public. This is very hard to do if what you’re saying is highly scripted.

One of the masters of conveying the excitement about what he was doing was a guy I used to work with at Walgreens, Dan Jorndt. He never worked with a script, but he always knew what he wanted to say. He put things in his words and allowed his passion and pride in the company to show. Investors loved him. Another master of the art is Howard Schultz at Starbucks. Not only can he convey the romance of a cup of coffee, he is passionate about what his company stands for, from the product to the entire customer experience. If you’re ever at an investor conference and he’s speaking, take the time to go and listen to him.

Now, I can sense that many IR officers out there are squirming and thinking, “We can’t do that with our guys, they’ll go right off the rails and into the ditch”. And perhaps the approach is not for everyone. Some speakers need more structure than others, but all speakers should be allowed to exhibit what they think makes their company great. And that doesn’t come from reading a bunch of bullet points off a slide. At the very least there should be a point within a presentation where a speaker can speak from the heart, whether it’s to tell a story about an employee or a customer, or the great new product the company has developed. To put it in a jazz context, a riff or solo within the structure of the piece that serves as an exclamation point to the entire presentation. Try it – you just might acquire a taste for it.