Forum Home Page [see Broadridge note below]

 The Shareholder ForumTM`

Fair Investor Access

This public program was initiated in collaboration with The Conference Board Task Force on Corporate/Investor Engagement and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies. The Forum is providing continuing reports of the issues that concern this program's participants, as summarized  in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

"Fair Access" Home Page

"Fair Access" Program Reference


Related Projects 2012-2019

For graphed analyses of company and related industry returns, see

Returns on Corporate Capital

See also analyses of

Shareholder Support Rankings


Forum reference:

Careful academic research documents what everyone knows about preferential access


For the full paper summarized by its authors below, see

Related research by one of the paper's authors has been presented previously for Forum attention:

Notes: A general business news publication commentary on the paper summarized below had been previously distributed to Forum participants: January 8, 2018 Bloomberg View: "What Do Investors and Companies Talk About?"

The issue of preferential access to corporate information was one of the professional investor concerns addressed by the Shareholder Forum's initial 1999-2000 programs that encouraged the adoption of SEC Regulation FD, and has been has been a subject of continuing participant interest.


Source: The Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation, January 15, 2018 posting

What Do Investors Ask Managers Privately?

Posted by Eugene F. Soltes and Jihwon Park (Harvard Business School), on Monday, January 15, 2018

Editor’s Note: Eugene Soltes is the Jakurski Family Associate Professor of Business Administration and Jihwon Park is a doctoral candidate at the Harvard Business School. This post is based on their recent paper.

Investors and managers of publicly traded firms spend a considerable amount of time speaking privately. According to the consultancy Ipreo, the average publicly traded firm conducts more than 100 one-on-one meetings annually with investors. While growing body of research provides evidence that these offline interactions offer investors in attendance opportunities to make more informed trading decisions. what actually goes on during these interactions has largely been elusive to outsiders.

In this paper, we seek to better understand the content of private manager-investor interactions by exploring over 1,200 questions posed by investors during private meetings with firm managers from two publicly traded firms. We acquired access to this unique field data by embedding a confederate with extensive investor relations experience in two firms from 2015 to 2016.

Working with investor relations officers (IROs), we devised a classification system for the questions posed by investors and found that they can be categorized into five distinct groups. The first type seeks more detailed insight and clarity of information that is already publicly available. For example, for the biotechnology firm in our sample, one investor asked if the final product would be manufactured in the same facility as the product used in regulatory trials. Other types include questions inquiring about management philosophy (e.g. “What keeps you up at night?”), questions seeking public information more efficiently (e.g. “Can you tell me about the level of share ownership by senior management?”), and questions seeking managers’ feedback on proprietary ideas and investment theses (e.g. “What looks more attractive right now: M&A activity or share buybacks?”).

Finally, the fifth type of questions are those seeking more timely information from managers. These are questions where the investor seeks data or information that is more recent than that available from public sources. For instance, one question that we observe investors frequently asking is around current cash holdings. Notably, the investor is not seeking the figure publicly disclosed in the 10-Q a month prior to the meeting. Rather, they are seeking to acquire an update of the financial statement information as of the date of the meeting.

We examine whether the types of questions asked by investors are predictable based on the personal background of the investor, their shareholdings in the firm, the characteristics of the fund they work for, and the venue where the offline interaction took place. Broadly, we find that in numerous instances the type and frequency of questions are strongly associated with several of these characteristics. In particular, investors who are more experienced and meet with managers of the firm more often are more likely to ask timely questions. Moreover, investors who hold a position in the firm, work for larger funds, and meet more often are less likely to ask efficiency questions that are readily answered by referring to public data sources.

We have data on the venues of meetings (i.e. conference, roadshow, or private phone call) and find that investors who gain access to management during a roadshow or private call ask the most questions. However, the greater number of questions asked during roadshows tends to be driven by the fact that the duration of the interactions is longer on average for roadshows. When the duration of the interaction is taken into account, conference meetings and private calls tend to be the most efficient meetings in terms of the number of questions asked. Management philosophy questions (e.g. “What keeps you up at night?”) potentially convey direct informational benefits, but also offer insight into managers via their body language and expression. We find that investors tend to less frequently ask such philosophical questions during private calls as compared to physical in-person interactions.

We also examine the differences in the types of questions asked publicly (during conference calls) to those asked privately during offline meetings. We find that the vast majority of questions on public conference calls are questions seeking greater detail, and we find no examples of timely or efficiency questions being asked. We also find that the number of dialogues is similar between public and private meetings, but the lack of superfluous pleasantries tend to mean that there is more interaction in private settings.

Prior research on private meetings has examined whether offline interactions are associated with changes in trading of the firm’s security. We further expand this analysis by examining whether such trading around private meetings is predominately associated with certain kinds of meetings based on the types of questions asked by investors. We find that aggregate trading in a firm’s security is higher when more forward looking questions are asked. Moreover, we find that when investors ask more forward looking or negative questions during private interactions, they are more likely to increase or decrease their position in the firm over the quarter. While this analysis is subject to a number of caveats associated with our ability to measures changes in ownership surrounding meetings, this preliminary evidence suggests certain kinds of interactions between managers and investors are more likely to generate the kinds of “benefits” associated with private meetings that has been documented in the prior literature.

Overall, our analysis begins to illuminate the confidential interactions between managers and investors. The fact that our sample firms would allow us to record these interactions suggests that they believed they conservatively approached these interactions with investors. Nonetheless, the nature of some of the questions—in particular those related to acquiring more timely information—and managers’ potential willingness to respond shows the difficulty in easily classifying what is viewed as permitted under Reg FD.

The complete paper is available here.


Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
All copyright and trademarks in content on this site are owned by their respective owners. Other content © 2018 The President and Fellows of Harvard College.



This Forum program was open, free of charge, to anyone concerned with investor interests in the development of marketplace standards for expanded access to information for securities valuation and shareholder voting decisions. As stated in the posted Conditions of Participation, the purpose of this public Forum's program was to provide decision-makers with access to information and a free exchange of views on the issues presented in the program's Forum Summary. Each participant was expected to make independent use of information obtained through the Forum, subject to the privacy rights of other participants.  It is a Forum rule that participants will not be identified or quoted without their explicit permission.

This Forum program was initiated in 2012 in collaboration with The Conference Board and with Thomson Reuters support of communication technologies to address issues and objectives defined by participants in the 2010 "E-Meetings" program relevant to broad public interests in marketplace practices. The website is being maintained to provide continuing reports of the issues addressed in the program, as summarized in the January 5, 2015 Forum Report of Conclusions.

Inquiries about this Forum program and requests to be included in its distribution list may be addressed to

The information provided to Forum participants is intended for their private reference, and permission has not been granted for the republishing of any copyrighted material. The material presented on this web site is the responsibility of Gary Lutin, as chairman of the Shareholder Forum.

Shareholder Forum™ is a trademark owned by The Shareholder Forum, Inc., for the programs conducted since 1999 to support investor access to decision-making information. It should be noted that we have no responsibility for the services that Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc., introduced for review in the Forum's 2010 "E-Meetings" program and has since been offering with the “Shareholder Forum” name, and we have asked Broadridge to use a different name that does not suggest our support or endorsement.