We are just left guessing here what Atte meant. However, I think it’s indisputable that, at least in that post, he didn’t justify the non-disclosure with the MAR regulation or inside information at all. Instead, he listed other reasons for not publishing.
He also referred to the company’s obligation to disclose non-inside information as well [point 3.5]. Separately, he even stated that this is not inside information. If the purpose of the post was the opposite, I am even more firmly of the opinion that the communication has not been successful. A clarification would be in order instead of us having to guess and examine every word here like in a crime lab.
If the real reason truly was the MAR regulation (i.e., inside information), it would have been good to state that already in the original post. Or even afterwards! This hasn’t been done, however, which is very confusing. I can’t think of any reason why this wouldn’t be expressed if the situation really was this.
Karo, on the other hand, is far too close to journos to understand that it is not legal to publish all information. But that is a different story
Thanks for the comments. I will further clarify my position from a regulatory perspective.
If we, in our analysis, obtain information from a company that clearly should be a stock exchange release before it has been released, we will not publish it on our channels, regardless of the category of the release. Stock exchange disclosure is strictly regulated precisely so that information is available to all investors equally and simultaneously, and not, for example, to Inderes’s or another operator’s clients before everyone else.
The decision not to publish is also not a statement on whether it was inside information—a stock exchange release may or may not fall into the inside information category depending on the situation, which is often subject to interpretation. My own comment steered things a bit off track when I referred (to emphasize the gravity of the matter) directly to inside information regulation. It would have been enough to state that it was information subject to disclosure requirements. We do not have a role in deciding whether an ambiguous situation is inside information or not. Companies must decide for themselves when to categorize information as inside information and internally document the justifications for this.
We have clearly failed in our communication regarding this. In my opinion, disclosure regulation in general correctly promotes the protection and equal treatment of all investors, and this regulation has improved tremendously over the last few decades. And we operate within these rules, often following the precautionary principle due to immense legal liability, especially in difficult and interpretive situations like this one. I also understand if someone feels that we acted in the spirit of excessive caution.
Thanks, this was very good and clarified your position!
Additionally, this clarified that you also do not publish non-insider information if it falls under the company’s disclosure obligations. I have already commented on this matter more than necessary, so for my part, case closed.
You are underestimating your readership, Mikael. No matter how complexly you try to frame it, the case and especially the principle we are discussing is actually quite simple.
You wrote: ”Stock exchange disclosure is strictly regulated precisely so that information is available to all investors equally and simultaneously and not, for example, to the customers of Inderes or anotheroperator before others”
Exactly. But you conveniently forget that the purpose of regulation is also to prevent analysts from obtaining information prematurely.
As this case shows, from time to time insiders end up leaking information that belongs to everyone to analysts. This is further fueled by the disclosure policy you described, where it is promised that premature information leaked to analysts will not be published before a stock exchange release. Such a practice creates, in modern terms, a “safer space” to share information with analysts who promise to act as gatekeepers.
Even we retail investors know that information provides an advantage. The smaller the circle that knows, the greater the information advantage. In this case, the situation was at its most unequal, of course, when the CFO’s email was known only to the analysts.
In this particular case, two easy ways come to mind to save the equal treatment of investors. Either urge the company to issue a release, preferably before the market opens—for which there was demonstrably enough time—or share the information with as wide a readership as possible. Then the information advantage/unequal situation would have been diluted to nothing.
Fortunately, this case doesn’t seem serious at all, and I don’t want to blame Atte. But as the matter is hashed out back and forth, I believe it’s in the interest of small investors that there should be no slippage in stock exchange regulation, even for the benefit of our beloved Inderes analysts.
In a forum poll, 91% supported recording analyst calls and publishing them in audio format and, where possible, in text format. Is a new publishing platform required for this to ensure the information is simultaneously available to everyone, or is the Inderes platform already sufficiently public?
I agree with this. Human errors occur sometimes, but they are usually quickly rectifiable.
In the case of official insider projects, however, the processes are so robust that this shouldn’t happen (and in such projects, anyone who accidentally receives information would also be included in the project’s scope).
The authority has issued its own recommendation regarding analyst calls (pre-silent calls), according to which they should be open to everyone, published on the company’s IR pages, and a recording should be available to everyone on the IR pages, etc. And even so, inside information must not be shared in them.
How widely do companies comply with that recommendation from the Financial Supervisory Authority (FIN-FSA)? The recommendation was issued on 30.10.2023. Is it time to write this into binding legislation?
