What Are We Meeting For? The Consequences of Private Meetings with Investors

David  H. Solomon; Eugene F. Soltes

Article | Journal of Law & Economics | May 2015

What Are We Meeting For? The Consequences of Private Meetings with Investors

by David H. Solomon and Eugene F. Soltes

Abstract

Regulation Fair Disclosure was passed in 2000 in response to the concern that certain investors were gaining selective access to privileged firm information. In spite of the passage of this regulation, some investors continue to meet privately with executives. Using a unique set of proprietary records of all one-on-one meetings between senior management and investors for an NYSE-traded firm, we investigate the impact of private meetings on investor decisions. We find that when investors meet privately with management they make more informed trading decisions. This improvement in trading is concentrated in hedge funds, but is not present for investment advisors or pension funds. Overall, our results suggest that private meetings help a select group of investors make more informed trading decisions.

Keywords: Conferences; Decision Making; Investment;

Format: Print

Find at Harvard

Citation:

Solomon, David H., and Eugene F. Soltes. "What Are We Meeting For? The Consequences of Private Meetings with Investors." Journal of Law & Economics 58, no. 2 (May 2015): 325–355.

Reebonz, an online luxury goods platform based in Singapore that operates across the Asia-Pacific region, offers its investors the opportunity to redeem shares if either the firm or its founder are investigated by the U.S. or U.K governments with regard to complying with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 or the U.K. Bribery Act. Readers are asked to consider the merits of this commitment and whether other firms should offer a similar anti-bribery commitment.

Alex Honnold is the world’s most accomplished free climber. To many, climbing sheer vertical faces of rock- like the famed El Capitan- without a rope is viewed as not simply risky, but reckless. Honnold contrasts this sentiment by presenting his perspective on risk taking and the challenges of living a fulfilled life.

When prosecutors, courts, and regulators make charging and sentencing decisions, they must evaluate whether firms have effective compliance programs. Such evaluations are difficult because of the challenges associated with measuring effectiveness. Notably, these obstacles are not limited to evaluation by external parties, as firm managers also struggle to assess the returns associated with investments in compliance. To address these limitations and to facilitate a more consistent assessment, this article provides a framework to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of compliance programs. I present empirical models that use data collected from compliance initiatives—including whistleblower hotlines, training exercises, and disciplinary procedures—to evaluate whether the initiatives are fulfilling their desired objectives. By being able to more rigorously evaluate compliance programs with data and empirical analysis, prosecutors and courts will be able to more readily discern “window-dressing,” and firm managers will be able to better understand the efficacy of their investments in compliance.

Faculty & Research

What Are We Meeting For? The Consequences of Private Meetings with Investors

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author