# How do you deal with an uncooperative Investor Relations department



## Brainer (Oct 8, 2015)

Has anyone had to deal with an uncooperative investor relations department for a publicly-traded company? 

I own one stock for which I've repeatedly called the company IR department over a month. Could not even reach reception. The phone just rang and rang. I finally reached someone in the IR dep't and she told me that by law, my question would have to be answered by the CFO or COO by law. She said she sent the CFO an email about it. Okay. 

About 10 days after that, I called, and spoke with the IR Dep't again. The IR rep. said: "What do you want me to do? I passed your question to the CFO". I told her he had not replied to my question, and that was it. She implied that that was it, there was nothing else to be done.

30 days later, it's now approx. 40 days since that email was allegedly sent to the CFO. Still no reply. The thing is, this stock has historically been a good performer. However, at the same time, I do wish I could get at least a speculative answer to my question.

I've had a wide variety of experience with different Investor Relations departments at North American corporations. Some call me within 2 hours. Others....

What has been your experience (bad or good)? Any suggestion for getting a reply from someone?
Are there any laws to support me?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

IR and any employee/officer, for that matter, can only respond with information that has already been made publicly available in websites, newswires, SEDAR and other regulatory filings. Anything more would be insider information. You are looking for a speculative? answer to a question. Good luck with that.


----------



## Brainer (Oct 8, 2015)

Alta:

Yes, but as I said...I waited 40 days for a CFO to get back to me. And workarounds might have been possible. The CFO could've dictated something to the IR rep. who could've emailed it to me. Maybe the word "speculative" was wrong. But if I were asking for certainties, I wouldn't often need to contact IR, would I?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Brainer said:


> Alta:
> 
> Yes, but as I said...I waited 40 days for a CFO to get back to me. And workarounds might have been possible. The CFO could've dictated something to the IR rep. who could've emailed it to me. Maybe the word "speculative" was wrong. But if I were asking for certainties, I wouldn't often need to contact IR, would I?


But what is s/he going to tell you whether directly or through an IR grunt? A reference/link to something already public? What is it you are looking for? 

FWIW, a CFO is more likely to reply to a major shareholder, commercial portfolio manager, or an analyst...but only with public information. Any other shareholder will likely be ignored.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> IR and any employee/officer, for that matter, can only respond with information that has already been made publicly available in websites, newswires, SEDAR and other regulatory filings. Anything more would be insider information. You are looking for a speculative? answer to a question. Good luck with that.



this is an excellent reply to the OP's post. A publicly-traded company cannot/will not reply with anything other than material that has already been made public.

plus a CFO has his hands full w institutional investors & analysts. Has no reason to deal w retail investors. The most i would expect from any company is nice lady who will point retail investor to where the answer to his question is located on the website or on SEDAR.


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

A company may provide you with information that is not public but some will only provide you with information that is required to be provided by law or information that has already been made public.
I have called some company executives up to and including CEO level in the past. They have given me information that was not public. As long as it is not of a nature that might influence the stock price it is perfectly acceptable. Obviously a large company can't put every detail of their operations in public filings. Most are quite prepared to provide additional material if asked, or talk about their goals and vision.
Only once have I had someone who was less than forthcoming and he was lower down the totem pole.

Perhaps if the OP would let us know the nature of his question someone could provide more specific help.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

twa2w said:


> Perhaps if the OP would let us know the nature of his question someone could provide more specific help.


That would indeed be helpful, but the OP's posts appear to be wanting speculative forward, or 'what if' information, not existing operational information which I agree can be offered. We've done it in the past as well if it was not strategic, nor potentially proprietary, nor of value to the competition.


----------



## Brainer (Oct 8, 2015)

The question I was trying to ask was around whether the company had any idea if the Trump tariffs might affect them in some material way. I wasn't necessarily looking for a quantitative answer, just something that might be give me some idea what they felt the risk profile was like.

Saying that the CFO has more important things to do is a non-starter for me. (S)he has more important things to do? Fine, then the company can plan their answers for the IR desk a little ahead of time. It's not like I asked this question a year before Trump got elected. How long has he been president now? Ninenteen months. Sorry, but if you folks are going to characterize my whole request as unreasonable, then I'm going to disagree. WTH have an IR desk if you aren't going to answer questions? Heck, why have a (general) phone line if not even a receptionist is answering?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The company will likely address the likely effect of Trump tariffs in the next quarter's MD&A, or they may issue something in a news release before then next quarterly results. Even then, they will likely say 'not material' or may provide a range in terms of 'earnings per share' effect. They won't say much to any individual member of the public before they say it publicly to everyone.

A company's IR department caters primarily to institutional investors and analysts, sometimes the media, and to individual shareholders, providing publicly known data, or clarifying published results. The most they would say I think is.... something to the effect that our supply costs are going up with tariffs on X, or USA has put a X% tariff on our exported sale and that will likely either squeeze our profit margins or be a headwind on sales volume. They won't say anything else, and that directlonally would likely already be known by anyone who is an existing shareholder, or researching the company to possibly become a shareholder. 

IR Departments are overhead costs and companies would rather not* have them if they could. Get away with as little as possible.

Added: *Except for maybe those wishing to pump their stock and then there is a full court strategy to market this exact thing.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Brainer said:


> The question I was trying to ask was around whether the company had any idea if the Trump tariffs might affect them in some material way. I wasn't necessarily looking for a quantitative answer, just something that might be give me some idea what they felt the risk profile was like.
> 
> Saying that the CFO has more important things to do is a non-starter for me. (S)he has more important things to do? Fine, then the company can plan their answers for the IR desk a little ahead of time. It's not like I asked this question a year before Trump got elected. How long has he been president now? Ninenteen months. Sorry, but if you folks are going to characterize my whole request as unreasonable, then I'm going to disagree. WTH have an IR desk if you aren't going to answer questions? Heck, why have a (general) phone line if not even a receptionist is answering?




^^ here's the trouble each:

no wonder small startups do everything in their power to avoid going public


----------



## Brainer (Oct 8, 2015)

Humble_Pie:

Wait, so you're saying I'm the problem? Wow, nice attitude in a forum where people are supposed to be helping each other by sharing knowledge. Or did I misunderstand something?



humble_pie said:


> ^^ here's the trouble each:
> 
> no wonder small startups do everything in their power to avoid going public


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Brainer said:


> Humble_Pie:
> 
> Wait, so you're saying I'm the problem? Wow, nice attitude in a forum where people are supposed to be helping each other by sharing knowledge. Or did I misunderstand something?




no one has shared more info or tried to help more people in this forum than myself, so you are launching yet another useless campaign with that one

what catches one's attention in your posts are a) your sense of entitlement, which is misplaced in this instance; & b) your obsession, which includes 40 days of repeatedly contacting - one might even say harassing - a company which clearly has no intention of responding to you.

if the company is publishing all its news & financial statements on a timely basis, if it is leaving no material circumstance uncovered, then an investor has no cause for complaint. It is far too soon for companies to be forced to publicly disclose their expected responses to donald trump's new tariffs & i doubt the IIROC would support your demand for personal disclosure. What the IIROC would tell you is exactly what cmffers have already mentioned in this thread.

the fact that you ask upthread for "laws" & lawyers to help you try to force this company to chat you up does raise a red flag ... something is a bit wrong here ... a sensible investor would simply go find another company


----------



## Numbersman61 (Jan 26, 2015)

Brainer said:


> Humble_Pie:
> 
> Wait, so you're saying I'm the problem? Wow, nice attitude in a forum where people are supposed to be helping each other by sharing knowledge. Or did I misunderstand something?


In actual fact, you are the problem. It would be highly improper for the company to answer your request without issuing a press release so that all investors are informed at the same time. 
In a prior post you stated “The question I was trying to ask was around whether the company had any idea if the Trump tariffs might affect them in some material way. I wasn't necessarily looking for a quantitative answer, just something that might be give me some idea what they felt the risk profile was like.”. Any answer only to you could be considered insider information.


----------



## Brainer (Oct 8, 2015)

humble pie:

So I guess your screen name is sarcasm, eh? First you brag about yourself, then you launch into a personal attack. Why the personal attack? I asked a legitimate question, insulted no one on this forum or anywhere else, and you launched into a personal attack.

What's more, I have never EVER had any discussion with you on this forum or anywhere else, so why did you refer to repeated experiences with me you've never had?

Finally, some of you seem to be making a lot of enormous assumptions about my knowledge level. I'm very inexperienced at this. I admit that readily. I didn't know the EXACT role of an IR dep't, so shoot me in the fricking head for not knowing. 

I never said anything EVER about forcing lawyers to do anything? What are you even talking about? Please cite where I said that.

Furthermore, I didn't explain very well what I meant. I meant that I had called the IR Dep't quite a few times during those months, not that I called them EVERY SINGLE DAY or multiple times per day. No, that probably would be harrassment. I thought that was clear, but I'm sorry if it wasn't. I still see no reason for what appears to be a personal attack. You know literally nothing about me. Nothing.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Brainer said:


> humble pie:
> 
> So I guess your screen name is sarcasm, eh? First you brag about yourself, then you launch into a personal attack. Why the personal attack? I asked a legitimate question, insulted no one on this forum or anywhere else, and you launched into a personal attack.
> 
> What's more, I have never EVER had any discussion with you on this forum or anywhere else, so why did you refer to repeated experiences with me you've never had?



i did not attack you in any way. What i criticized - as did everyone else in this thread - is your inappropriately aggressive attitude towards this company, in particular the frequency of your contacts insisting that they must converse or respond to your personal concerns, as well as the way you asked this forum for "laws" that could support your right to harass the company for information they have no obligation to disclose.

neither did i refer to any prior discussion or encounter i have had with yourself. I have had zero prior discussions or encounters with yourself. You are making that fiction up. 






Brainer said:


> I never said anything EVER about forcing lawyers to do anything? What are you even talking about? Please cite where I said that.


in your first post you asked for "laws" to support your campaign to force the company to chat with you:



Brainer said:


> Has anyone had to deal with an uncooperative investor relations department for a publicly-traded company?
> 
> I own one stock for which I've repeatedly called the company IR department over a month ... 30 days later, it's now approx. 40 days since that email was allegedly sent to the CFO. Still no reply ... I do wish I could get at least a speculative answer to my question ...
> 
> *Are there any laws to support me?*



.


----------



## Brainer (Oct 8, 2015)

Well, we won't agree on the first part. Maybe it has something to do with the words you choose.
"harrass the company"? Please cite where I even implied I would "harrass the company". That is your interpretation of my words, not what I said.

On the part about the actual company, if I was ignorant about what I was asking, and it was not appropriate for someone to ask that info., why didn't the IR rep. tell me that? Or she could have said "we don't/can't give out that kind of information, that's not what an IR dep't does?

Do IR departments have any legal obligation (as a matter of curiosity) to do anything? If they're just a courtesy, maybe that ought to be more publicized.






humble_pie said:


> i did not attack you in any way. What i criticized - as did everyone else in this thread - is your inappropriately aggressive attitude towards this company, in particular the frequency of your contacts insisting that they must converse or respond to your personal concerns, as well as the way you asked this forum for "laws" that could support your right to harass the company for information they have no obligation to disclose.
> 
> neither did i refer to any prior discussion or encounter i have had with yourself. I have had zero prior discussions or encounters with yourself. You are making that fiction up.
> 
> ...


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Brainer, why is it you choose to drag this on and on? The horse has been flogged numerous times over. It never was worthy of a rant to begin with.


----------

