RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:From IRpipsqueak3 wrote: Not sure where 'new' came from?
My simple take:
PR: Going forward, the Company has adopted a no further guidance disclosure policy until it is profitable and its debt burden has been reduced.
IR: Our policy has not changed, that guidance comment is just reiterating our position. We’ve never given financial guidance and in regard to the project financing and SDI project we are not, and haven't been, providing any guidance on timing of the project financing for a while now. We will put out a press release when something material occurs.
Me: Technically, every day they can say 'going forward' and it would be no less true. It's semantics to me - we knew they had the policy and now they are saying 'going forward' we have adopted the policy. It's the first time it was written so from that standpoint, 'going forward' does fit. They should have done without the 'going forward' part however - but this was likely just some legal jargon statement for the first time it has ever been written. There's just a small disconnect between the people writing these statements vs the readership. This is because the new board members who are still getting settled in haven't fully realized that every word will get flipped upside down on them yet ;). First, "IF", and now, "Going Forward". Same intention - same result.
I disagree. Semantics are not "just semantics" when talking about IR and communication professionals. 2 months is not "a while now" . If it was what would IMP call 12 months? IR's job is to eliminate "disconnects between people writing these statements vs the readership" . And the bottom line this is not good news for us. The price with drift until $ comes in. As it has in the past 12 months.