Corporate secrecy sucks. Having access to a wide variety of significant information makes a huge difference when assessing whether a stock's worth buying, holding, or selling. Unfortunately, many companies haven't realized that stingier disclosures cast their corporate governance in a lousy light.
Apple's rotten turn
Last week, Apple shareholders voted down a shareholder proposal posed by the Central Laborers' Pension Fund that asked for a detailed succession plan in the event Steve Jobs can't return to the helm. Case closed, right? Not so fast.
The New York Times reported that Apple buried the actual vote tallies for the proposal in an SEC filing, noting that major companies such as Ford and Goldman Sachs disclose this information in a less opaque manner.
Perhaps the powers that be at Apple figured that it's easy to brush off a vote that only gained 30% of shareholders' support. However, it's a much bigger deal when you see that votes representing a not-insignificant 172 million Apple shares favored the proposal.
Although burying information in an SEC filing is technically disclosure, it's not exactly the most transparent way to distribute information to shareholders.
Slogging through the legalese
Disclosing pertinent information in SEC filings without including it in press releases or other, more accessible locations is nothing new. Years ago, while working for a newswire, I spent much of my working hours digging through SEC filings for significant information that companies hadn't otherwise disclosed. Some of the tidbits my colleagues and I unearthed were real doozies, triggering massive stock moves when the information hit the wires.
Today, the website Footnoted.com strives to bring such information to light, since many companies persist in burying important information in dense legalese that many investors may not have the time or patience to dig through.
Recent interesting tidbits on Footnoted.com's radar included an apparently random, unexplained raise for an ExxonMobil
Taking stock of secretiveness
Many companies probably wouldn't want anyone digging too deep into their filings in search of questionable deeds. But aside from competitive product information, the best companies should have nothing to hide. Shareholders should expect -- and demand -- disclosure through many different channels, not just the ones regulations require, and avoid companies that seek to sweep their dubious doings under a regulatory rug.
If information is power, too many companies seem to want their true owners to remain relatively powerless.
Check back at Fool.com every Wednesday and Friday for Alyce Lomax's columns on corporate governance.