Lautenschlager has completed her due diligence on a petrochemical company and is preparing to issue a somewhat negative report on the company that will include a “sell” recommendation. She gives a final draft of the report to company management to review for factual accuracy. The CEO of the company is highly upset by the report and threatens to cut-off her access to company officials and bar Lautenschlager from conference calls and other avenues of communication with the company if the report is published. Lautenschlager’s BEST course of action is to: a.Revise her analysis of the company in light of management’s objections to the report. b.Publish the report with the analysis intact, but remove the “sell” recommendation. c. Allow company management to make revisions to de-emphasize the negative factors but maintain the “sell” recommendation in the report. d. Publish the report as written, regardless of the objections by company management. I remember seeing a question where a manager asks the analyst to change the verbiage of their sell report and it was ok. Here, C is wrong. D is the correct answer. What’s the thin line? ok to change verbiage as long as it’s not changing the point of the recommendation?
If it is a factual discrepancy, the analyst can change the report based on the accurate facts. However, if management just doesn’t agree, then the analyst is required to go with his or her original opinion, independent of management’s thoughts.
billy22g Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If it is a factual discrepancy, the analyst can > change the report based on the accurate facts. > However, if management just doesn’t agree, then > the analyst is required to go with his or her > original opinion, independent of management’s > thoughts. Thanks billy