I been banging on about this for a while (post
#5004). Its all in the language. Apply my "Rules of Joyce" below to prove a square really is a circle.
Originally Posted by FYSTI
There is no transparency, no ability to actually determine the true financial state of a public company if it chooses to hide it. There are sufficient devices "commercial in confidence" to allow the true state of affairs to be obscured.
That is why collapses occur. Unsuspecting shareholders, creditors, customers & employees are unable to access the financial state, and must rely on the imprecise public utterances & statements of company officers & officials. Note very very carefully the language of such statements, they are almost always meaningless in the concrete & factual information they convey. It is just as important to access what is left out, what is not talked about. That conveys much more information as what is actually said in a lot of cases.
I use some simple rules to determine if the information conveyed has any validity or meaning. Was the language precise? Does the language give sufficient wiggle room to alter the meaning later? Are key phrases defined? Can facts be independently validated. Most importantly, what is the penalty or punishment if a precise statement is an untruth? (this includes actual meaningful enforcement)
If you go back over statements and apply these simple rules, you will quickly come to that the conclusion that the vast bulk of corporate communications is absolutely meaningless in terms of genuine information conveyed, just the way they want it.