Slashdot Mirror
SEC Lets Companies Disclose Via Websites, Blogs
edadams passes along a note in the ABA Journal that reads "Corporations may now sometimes fulfill their public disclosure requirements under Regulation FD by posting information on their websites and blogs, rather than having news releases distributed by third-party companies, according to new guidance issued by the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The move is expected to cut compliance costs." Here is the SEC's policy announcement.
Generally the value of this data is time-limited. I'm more concerned about how difficult it is going to be for the media to pick up important stories in a timely manner if they have to scour blogs and investor relations sites to glean newsworthy details. A third-party company can prioritise and feed important information to the market effectively.
[FUCK BETA]
Currently the advantage is with the large boys since they can afford the subscriptions to the approved outlets ... they thus get to know the news first. This will help to level the playing field.
The SEC under Bush has made it quite clear that you as a shareholder do not own the company, the CEO and board do. This is just another example of how shareholders are getting fucked. Hell, the SEC ruled that you as a shareholder have almost NO recourse if the board picks a terrible CEO and then rewards them with tons of money. The SEC as of late is just another reason that despite being an American citizen, I refuse to invest my money in the United States. Bush has made it quite clear that the wealth that has been built up over the past 2 hundred years is meant to be devoured by a few greedy, incompetent, but well connected morons. If some scraps fall to the ground for the shareholders or employees, that is just collateral damage.
Monstar L
Shock horror! The media might have to do some leg work!
Or just maybe a third party could monitor this blogs and sites, then prioritize and feed important information to the market effectively.
There isn't any reason for someone with an insubstantial number of shares to ever think that they own part of the company. It makes a lot more sense to think of the money as a loan if you can't do much more than vote in the shareholder meeting once a year.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
wow. you people can turn anything into an anti bush message. best of all you don't even let facts or reality get in the way!
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
A central achieved copy for legal purposes is a requirement to ensure all investors gain equal access to all announcements, the cost in terms of the trillions of dollars invested in corporations is negligible.
Personally I would think it would make more sense to expand the service of the SEC so that they could handle all announcements and third parties could pick it up from there to redistribute or investors can go direct.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
When companies post announcements via third party media, those announcements are presumably archived. I wonder what the impacts would be of blog-disclosures being retracted or edited after the fact, Ministry of Truth-style?
The SEC already serves as a repository of a variety of official communications from all listed companies. Seems to me they are the logical candidate for a centralized clearinghouse of all disclosures. Sure, let the companies post it wherever else they want too, but require them to first send a copy to the SEC who will archive it and put it up for public access ASAP. Make the copy on file with the SEC the official record and leave it at that.
It sure beats the problems that come with 'self auditing' like in this new proposal and it also means we don't have to pay someone (or more likely someones) to run a spider that hits all the websites and blogs of all the listed companies every 30 seconds in order to get newly released info.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Whoever aggregates all of these disclosures, and rates companies based on their accuracy and fidelity over time, is probably going to have a lot of customers.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Warren Buffet owns a substantial number of shares.
You're missing out on a lot of good the SEC has done in the last few years, then. They're the only guys not out glory-hogging and actually doing a few things to keep the market and regulations under control. They've limited - and are trying to further limit - naked short-selling and blatant stock manipulation; and, in particular, they did about as well as they could in the whole Bear Stearns debacle:
http://spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13479 - yes, I know it's the Spectator, but it's a good review of Chris Cox. If you're mad at the government for actually staying out of the way of businesses, you're not being smart with your money. Overpaid CEO's of failing companies are a DROP in the bucket of everything that matters right now, and if that's your sole concern, you're going to lose out at one of the best times to buy into the market in your lifetime.
If the government wasn't spending money like a drunken sailor without taking anything in(ie like Bush), then the dollar tends to weak significantly. I don't see how the dems would have done worse by not spending money we don't have on wars we didn't need would have been worse for the economy. As it stands, the dollar is worth about half what it was when Bush came into office. Even given the fact that the economy has grown say 20% over his terms in office, the GDP measured in euros is about 60% of what it was...60%! The United States hasn't lost money like that since the great depression. How can you actually say with a straight face that this is a GOOD thing? Bush has killed the dollar forever with his reckless spending, and the Democrats nor McCain will be able to fix the damage he has done for at LEAST 50 years. Worst president in the past 100 years, probably the worst ever.
Monstar L
You say that like there's something inherently wrong with a weaker dollar. First of all, bear in mind that the dollar still beats many other currencies in other countries. But beyond this, if the dollar weakens, then travel to the US and the purchase of US goods suddenly become more appealing to foreigners. Think about it if you're a European; your Euro now goes further than it ever did before. Maybe now would be a good time to travel to the US and use that money while it's good, and maybe buy an iPod or a laptop, or something else that, even with duty fees, is way cheaper now than it would be back in Europe (I know several people who have done this just this summer). Meanwhile, people in the US are less likely to buy imported goods, since they're more expensive. This increases the amount of money in the US economy, which is usually considered a good thing (since it comes from real value, and not just printing money).
Also, I'm fairly confident that there was fairly massive deflation during the Great Depression. So, that argument doesn't really hold up either (unless I'm misunderstanding it).
I'm not arguing the point that Bush has been a horrible President. But let's keep ourselves to important criticisms, and not get caught up in inflation arguments.