RE:Guidance revisionsNo question. I put this EXACT question and sequence to Mike Sifton and I'll paraphrase his response:
1) I've never been a fan of guidance.
2) We did it to help investors understand the changes we were implementing.
3) We have clearly done a poor job on this (as an aside most managers aren't this brutally honest when they eff up... the fact he's said this first and provided reasons later as opposed to answered my question immediately with excuses speaks volumes IMO)
4) We have anticipated improvements but have generally all taken longer than originally planned.
5) Onboarding new biz has been painfully slow and erosion of legacy biz more severe than anticipated.
6) I'd be happy to abandon guidance.
7) New FI client will go a long way to stem bleed of legacy business.
I've spoken with an analyst and she says that they can't really abandon guidance as the optics of this are worse than having to keep lowering it. I know both are bad but those were her comments.
While I will agree the credibility of the guidance is in question here I don't believe we as investors should be questioning their intent and honesty. I could be wrong and fully admit that I have been wrong in the past and will be wrong again in the future but my sense is these guys are hard working, honest and are personally heavily invested in the success of this turnaround. Good luck to us.