The Bedrock Papers
Twelve essays on what the literature actually says about investor communication, and where the IR profession stopped reading.
Twelve essays on what the literature actually says about investor communication, and where the IR profession stopped reading.
Somewhere in the past few decades, investor relations stopped reading. The profession runs on a settled consensus: target broadly, guide conservatively, market the equity story, disclose what the rules require. Almost nobody checks it against the literature it supposedly rests on. We did.
The Bedrock Papers are twelve essays drawn from a structured reading of the serious work on investor communication: the writing craft, the empirical research on what disclosure language does to pricing, and the governance, valuation, and shareholder-cultivation literature the IR tradition tends not to open. The first six set out the principles that hold up everywhere we tested them, and the tests you can run on your own materials this week. The seventh asks why PR and IR ended up in different departments when their canons agree. The last five are less comfortable: they map where the practitioner consensus and the broader literature flatly disagree, and where, for years, our own advice sat on the consensus side.
Each essay stands alone. Read in order, they are a single argument: that communication discipline is the cheapest durable advantage available to an Asian listed company, and most of the region’s issuers are leaving it unclaimed.
Most IR materials are competent on the surface and structurally inert underneath. These seven principles are the discipline behind the difference, and a test you can run on your next release.
One failure mode dominates investor writing: the sentence that looks like an assertion but makes no claim. It survives every review and informs no one, and there is a five-minute test that catches it.
Ask your CEO, CFO, IRO, and Chairman to describe the company in one sentence, independently. Most boards produce four different answers, and every institutional investor reading multiple artefacts can see it.
Two CEOs reassure investors the same morning. One deposits credibility; the other spends it. The difference is fact-anchored reassurance, and most programmes pay the cost without making the deposit.
A company can satisfy every disclosure rule and still be functionally opaque. Foreign investors apply one asymmetric test, and the discount for failing it shows up in the multiple, not the accounts.
An editor receives a flabby ‘Strategic Priorities’ slide and goes to work on the verbs. They will improve the slide and edit the wrong thing, because the gap underneath is analytical, not editorial.
A crisis hits on a Tuesday; PR and IR issue overlapping, not-quite-identical responses, and a buy-side analyst trims the position. The two disciplines’ canons agree. The org chart is what doesn’t.
Ask any IR team who they target and the honest answer is everyone who buys stocks. The literature on quality shareholders argues that breadth has been the wrong target all along.
A company beats guidance by two cents and rises; three quarters later it misses by one and falls twice as far. Conservative guidance, consistently applied, conditions analysts to price the cushion away.
Asked what IR is for, most boards answer reflexively: maximise the stock price. The cross-disciplinary literature, and Jack Welch late in life, has been pointing somewhere else for forty years.
‘Marketing the equity story’ is a pitch-deck header nobody examines. The vocabulary imports a customer-acquisition logic that quietly repels the long-duration holders the company actually wants.
A disclosure committee rules three items immaterial and discloses none. Six months later a long-only holder cannot understand the company. The committee was right by the threshold and wrong by what the investor needed.
We welcome conversations with IR professionals, board directors, and capital markets participants.
Start a Conversation