<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" version="2.0"><channel><atom:id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690</atom:id><lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:29:50 +0000</lastBuildDate><title>Mark Hynes  - thoughts on corporate disclosure</title><description>Opinions on changing rules, changing best practices, and their effect on investor relations officers.</description><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/</link><managingEditor>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</managingEditor><generator>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>177</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/MarkHynes-ThoughtsOnCorporateDisclosure" type="application/rss+xml" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com" /><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-2099813077194706385</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:11:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-10-29T10:14:21.557Z</atom:updated><title>Conviction notes; practical details a problem?</title><atom:summary type="text">It was a new one on me I have to admit. In discussion with an interesting group this week, we chatted about ‘conviction notes’ from sell side analysts, and whether / how the prop desks of the investment banks issuing them can support the note without crossing the Chinese wall.Going back one step. By definition, a conviction buy or sell note from an analyst means that that bank’s proprietary </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/10/conviction-notes-practical-details.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">2</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-4701800435646080432</guid><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:59:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-10-15T11:09:46.474Z</atom:updated><title>Its guidance, Jim, but not as we know it..</title><atom:summary type="text">Pity the poor regulator. You go to a nice dinner at the IoD and give a speech, and you have someone like me poring all over it for clues as to the concerns of the UK’s Financial Services Authority. The Manager at Company Monitoring at the FSA had that task last week.One of the problems is that with the ‘principles based’ regulatory structure in the UK, there is a constant refrain that no one size</atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/10/its-guidance-jim-but-not-as-we-know-it.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-6364034538496873631</guid><pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:26:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-09-30T08:30:17.413Z</atom:updated><title>A change to “standard” listing would present challenges for IR teams</title><atom:summary type="text">The news this week that UK companies will be allowed to list on the London Stock Exchange using a less rigorous set of rules previously available only to overseas companies has some interesting potential dilemmas for IR teams.For those who missed it, the FSA trailed – buried in the depths of the FSA Handbook rules update – the change which creates a “premium” listing and a “standard” listing. </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/09/change-to-standard-listing-would.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-5272694375685174161</guid><pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:58:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-09-24T14:00:13.495Z</atom:updated><title>Stock lending on the rise again.</title><atom:summary type="text">Stock lending – the process whereby long funds ‘lend’ (ie transfer temporarily) their shares to a third party normally a hedge fund – has started to hit the news again. It had dropped off almost completely since late last year, with the down sizing of the hedge fund industry being part of the problem.According to a report by consultancy Finadium, loan volumes of US equities to January 2009 had </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/09/stock-lending-on-rise-again.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-5790719000590437670</guid><pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 11:26:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-09-17T11:30:28.265Z</atom:updated><title>Rumours can seriously damage your reputation.</title><atom:summary type="text">Type the word “rumour” into FT.com today and you get 10356 hits. The vast majority have a company name in the headline, and represent a headache/ task for the IR team. The potential for share price volatility is great. And how to handle rumours in a disclosure context is a theme that always attracts discussion among delegates on compliance courses I run for the Investor Relations Society.And yet </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/09/rumours-can-seriously-damage-your.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-5082980117727433532</guid><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:26:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-09-03T13:31:52.687Z</atom:updated><title>ESG factors growing as investment criteria</title><atom:summary type="text">The last 10 years have seen a change in companies’ understanding of how environmental social and governance (ESG) factors affect their business operations. And many companies have placed these factors high on their priority lists.For their part, large investors have increasingly developed public responsible investment strategies and are now more open about how they are implementing them, in many </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/09/esg-factors-growing-as-investment.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-2566084072110865264</guid><pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 11:09:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-08-20T11:13:57.422Z</atom:updated><title>Cooperation by investors is OK, says the FSA.</title><atom:summary type="text">TM’s recent post below “Engagement is the new black” missed a word in its title: collective. The announcement yesterday from the Financial Services Authority helpfully clarifies the rules of engagement covering cooperation between activist investors.Investors can work actively together under certain conditions – especially on governance issues - without falling foul of European Union and UK rules</atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/08/cooperation-by-investors-is-ok-says-fsa.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-1400193869105048626</guid><pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 11:06:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-08-13T11:12:52.242Z</atom:updated><title>More to do on disclosure of climate change policies by companies.</title><atom:summary type="text">Yet more pressure on investors to persuade companies to toe the line, this time on climate change disclosures. Inevitably, the burden of communication will fall on those responsible for investor communication.Eiris, the provider of research into the social, environmental and ethical performance of companies, has just updated its 2008 work critiquing the identification, mitigation and </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/08/more-to-do-on-disclosure-of-climate.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-4606325785663723032</guid><pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:08:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-07-30T14:13:19.853Z</atom:updated><title>“Engagement” – the new black</title><atom:summary type="text">It seems to be the governance word of the moment. Engagement is being positioned as at least one of the buttresses in place against a future ‘massive failure of corporate governance’. Indeed some are fearful that engagement will be something on which government will press to legislate.So a couple of writings this week caught the attention, which may interest IR teams.An interesting enquiry among </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/07/engagement-new-black.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-3612008054070812380</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 08:24:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-07-16T08:29:05.085Z</atom:updated><title>EU-wide short selling disclosure rules?</title><atom:summary type="text">Useful liquidity providers, and an informed source of true market value, or scavenger taking advantage of ill fortune in bad times? The hedge fund industry is fighting back against the latter image, notably in the FT whilst regulators look at how to ensure that the problems of last year are not seen again. CESR’s proposals would require a significant amount of reporting.We have seen so far 3 </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/07/eu-wide-short-selling-disclosure-rules.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">1</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-4368972088477408422</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:37:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-07-02T08:42:26.227Z</atom:updated><title>Technology, trading and investor relations</title><atom:summary type="text">It is a moment many an IR person dreads. A significant number of shares have changed hands overnight, and the FD wants to know why. Unfortunately, there are an increasing number of occasions when the technology has hidden the reason – or even the transaction – from view.The good news is this may be about to change, following 2 announcements this week.First, dark pools. Or more properly, multi </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/07/technology-trading-and-investor.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">1</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-8015993927117179700</guid><pubDate>Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:45:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-06-25T05:48:36.141Z</atom:updated><title>Governance up the agenda for IR teams</title><atom:summary type="text">“Governance” and “interesting” used to be contradictory terms for most IR people. However earlier this week, I went to a private lunch hosted by Tomorrows Company and Radley Yeldar (see my bio) which managed to combine both.The point of the event was to allow a high quality group to debate the ‘stewardship’ of companies, and a potential disconnect of interests between ownership and the long term </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/06/governance-up-agenda-for-ir-teams.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-7068788445532386122</guid><pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:52:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-06-10T14:55:44.540Z</atom:updated><title>Corporate reporting is about ‘cutting out the clutter’.</title><atom:summary type="text">The preparers of annual and other reports have always had to balance between compliance and communication.  Traditional wisdom has it that so much of what the ‘rules’ say should be reported is of no interest to anyone, and is simply there for compliance sake.Well now there is support for the view that reporting should be more about principles of good communication.2 years ago, the Financial </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/06/corporate-reporting-is-about-cutting.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-771486478949948984</guid><pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 13:35:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-05-28T13:43:31.321Z</atom:updated><title>The trouble with IMS’s...</title><atom:summary type="text">One of the proposals when the Transparency Obligations Directive was in discussion in Brussels was whether to oblige companies to produce a full quarterly financial report, a l’Americain. After all went the argument, a significant number of European member states already require it; why not make it a pan EU requirement?There are of course a great number of drawbacks to that as an idea, including </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/05/trouble-with-imss.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-3134832404148253119</guid><pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 12:37:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-05-20T12:41:21.132Z</atom:updated><title>Walker Review – the missing link</title><atom:summary type="text">The Walker Review closes for its initial public feedback at the end of next week. This independent review looks at corporate governance in the UK banking industry. Unsurprisingly, there are many who create a connection between the massive failures in the banking sector and an absence of corporate governance.What is however surprising – at least to me – is the lack of focus on disclosure and </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/05/walker-review-missing-link.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">1</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-6934630903083464910</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 May 2009 11:48:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-05-14T11:52:09.723Z</atom:updated><title>It's that word again - transparency</title><atom:summary type="text">It has been impossible to turn on the TV this week without hearing that ‘transparency’ is needed. The theme that public companies have been used to for many years – the demand for greater insight in to their affairs – has come home to our lawmakers. I had a very interesting discussion early this week with a senior IR person who had been through a tough baptism into IR. She had taken the IR reins </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/05/its-that-word-again-transparency.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-4365405660829186303</guid><pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2009 11:57:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-05-06T12:00:30.048Z</atom:updated><title>New regulation of rating agencies from 2010 will have an impact on investor relations practitioners.</title><atom:summary type="text">Credit rating agencies wanting to operate in the European Union will have to register and be supervised from next year after European Parliament last week signed off draft rules proposed by the Commission.The new regime will require agencies to apply to the Committee of European Securities Regulators in Paris for registration and be overseen on a day-to-day basis by “colleges” of national </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-regulation-of-rating-agencies-from.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-8497927069157395284</guid><pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 13:10:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-04-23T13:14:55.566Z</atom:updated><title>Now a focus on stock lending.</title><atom:summary type="text">The genie truly is out of the bottle. As regulators all over the world come to terms with whether to ban short selling, or whether to require disclosure, and if so how, a new enquiry is underway.Stock lending has a distinguished history of helping in various market situations. Lost certificates, dividend arbitrage, hedging and many other legitimate tactics have underpinned the returns to long </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/04/now-focus-on-stock-lending.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-2716927360665780546</guid><pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:49:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-04-16T13:51:53.139Z</atom:updated><title>Expert says - back to basics in IR</title><atom:summary type="text">When a fund manager with decades of experience in stock picking speaks, we tend to listen. Anthony Bolton’s new book (Against the Tide by Anthony Bolton. Published by FTPH, price £14.99. © Anthony Bolton 2009), has some very important messages for IR practitioners.In discussing how he approaches analysis of a potential investment in a company, he starts with the narrative. What business is the </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/04/expert-says-back-to-basics-in-ir.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">1</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-6559997935930949501</guid><pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:26:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-04-09T11:32:11.435Z</atom:updated><title>Annual report season: what a variation in approach.</title><atom:summary type="text">Its that time of year again when the calendar year end annual reports become available. And I have been working on a project for Radley Yeldar to review the FTSE 100 reports. The result will be available in May, when the final deadline of end April has passed, so watch this space.What is already apparent is the vast range of approach taken by different companies.First, what is the purpose of the </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/04/annual-report-season-what-variation-in.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-1624864719496632887</guid><pubDate>Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:58:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-04-02T10:01:28.945Z</atom:updated><title /><atom:summary type="text">It has been a known for a while that the sell side research model is changing – if it is not broken altogether. With rising costs and CA teams leaving, independent research is gaining in acceptance. Now this debate has been given even more credence by comments Paul Volcker, ex-Fed chairman and Obama guru in The Times, no less.It may well have a substantial impact on how IR communicates with the </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/04/it-has-been-known-for-while-that-sell.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-9203698476378186556</guid><pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:16:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-03-24T09:18:35.813Z</atom:updated><title>Investors the key to changes to the Combined Code.</title><atom:summary type="text">Cometh the downturn, cometh the regulatory review. Now it’s the turn of the Combined Code to be assessed. In its last review in 2007, only modest changes were proposed and implemented last year. Largely the Code won a resounding thumbs up from both issuers and investors. It has been regarded as state of the art. However the latest review emphasises the role that investors should play.City folks </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/03/investors-key-to-changes-to-combined.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-6116978129812400370</guid><pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:29:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-03-19T13:32:38.018Z</atom:updated><title>How many reviews do we need?</title><atom:summary type="text">The inevitable regulatory response to the challenges of the last few months is now in full swing. Yesterday’s Turner report focuses heavily on banks and the wider financial markets structures, but there are some clues for the wider corporate community of where change is coming.One of these is in corporate governance where this week the Financial Reporting Council launched a review of the Combined</atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-many-reviews-do-we-need.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">0</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-5464844321582718706</guid><pubDate>Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:33:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-03-12T08:37:42.444Z</atom:updated><title>From IR to SR?</title><atom:summary type="text">One of the changes coming from the 2006 Companies Act was those of Directors Duties. These have been upgraded to include a duty not only to investors but also to the wider stakeholder community. Thus Directors are duty bound to consider in their decisions, not only on members of the company – those who own the business – but also those who work in it, supply it, the community around it, those </atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/03/from-ir-to-sr.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">1</thr:total></item><item><guid isPermaLink="false">tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13817690.post-3414139506537907927</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 10:34:00 +0000</pubDate><atom:updated>2009-02-26T10:41:20.422Z</atom:updated><title>Ban short selling, enforce disclosure or both?</title><atom:summary type="text">Next Tuesday I have the pleasure of moderating a webinar with 3 distinguished speakers. Details are on the IR Society’s website here. The title is "Shorting - To Ban or Not To Ban". It’s an interesting question, to which I suspect many regulators would like to know the answer.In the US the ban was short-lived and in the UK it was lifted last month, as was Australia’s. But Belgium, France, Germany</atom:summary><link>http://transparencymatters.blogspot.com/2009/02/ban-short-selling-enforce-disclosure-or.html</link><author>noreply@blogger.com (Mark Hynes)</author><thr:total xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0">2</thr:total></item></channel></rss>
