Friday, November 16, 2001
Ahold has again been awarded the annual Dutch Investor Relations Prize. Here is the research report from Rematch BV.
Rematch bv
Table of content
Conclusions 1
1 Introduction 5
2 Investor relations scores Ahold 6
2.1 Summary IR results 2001 6
2.2 IR-rating Ahold 2001 7
3 IR-scores of each target group 8
3.1 Portfolio managers 8
3.2 Analysts / advisors 10
3.3 Financial press 12
3.4 Private investors 14
3.5 A group comparison 15
4 Fund profile Ahold 17
5 Overall judgement annual report Ahold 19
5.1 Judgement annual report Ahold per target group 19
5.2 Profile annual report 22
5.3 Visitors numbers to website 23
Appendix 1 Ranking 24
Appendix 2 Score annual reports 26
Appendix 3 Websites 28
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
IR market evaluation: winner of AEX IR award 2001
1. Ahold achieved first place this year among the AEX stocks, achieving an extremely high IR score of 9.0. This score was based on the highest IR scores and the above-average response percentages with all the various IR-target groups.
2. The positions with the various target groups may be characterised as follows:
- portfolio managers: very strong; average response rate; coverage rate forms a sharp contrast;
- analysts/advisors: good and solid; declining response- and coverage rates no cause for alarm;
- financial press: strong, but distinguishing coverage rate on the wane; more competition ahead;
- private investors: amply sufficient; still room for improvement, more competition expected.
3. With three out of four target groups, the IR-results have improved. Only with the financial press has the score remained unchanged. The scores range from 8.2 with the analysts to 7.5 with the private investors. With each individual target group, Ahold achieved the highest IR score.
4. With three out of four target groups, the views on which the IR score was based are homogenous. In view of the high IR scores, a good combination and a potentially stable position was achieved with these target groups. Only with the private investors did the evaluation fall short of homogenous, albeit only just. The combination of the score and the standard deviation is satisfactory, nevertheless.
5. The response rates range from average (fund managers) to good (other target groups). With respect to the coverage rates, Ahold occupies a less prominent place. With the private investors, the company achieves the highest coverage rate. With the other three target groups, Aholds performance is above average, but the company is outperformed by at least one other stock. With the fund managers, the on-going decline in coverage rates in our view warrants some degree of alertness, and possibly further action. With the analysts, the falling coverage rate is a result of the ever-increasing degree of specialisation within this target group.
6. On average, the evaluations by the monitors/investors are higher than those of the corresponding target groups. Only with the private investors was the evaluation identical. With all target groups, the difference in evaluation between the subgroups and the corresponding target groups falls within acceptable margins.
Stock profile: global stock, long-term investment, growth and defensive stock
7. Ahold is seen first and foremost as a global stock, a long-term investment, a growth and a defensive stock. A shift in the profile has occurred in the sense that the growth image is still weakening, and that the company is increasingly seen as a defensive stock. In line with this development, the support for widow & orphans stock is increasing. The image is becoming less sexy. Nevertheless, the profile is satisfactory, in our view, as well as fairly consistent, with respect to the individual target groups, and also historically speaking. Negative undertones are non-existent with three out of four target groups. Only with the private investors does the situation call for some degree of alertness.
Evaluation Annual Report: very satisfactory; second place; too much emphasis on analysts
8. The overall valuation of the Ahold 2000 annual report (7.3) is below that of the 1999 report (7.5). With three out of four target groups, a lower score was achieved in comparison to last year. Only with the analysts does the score work out higher. This leads us to suspect that the annual report was written too much with this particular target group in mind.
9. With the private investors, the evaluation by the monitors/investors of the 2000 annual report is identical to that of the target group as a whole. With the other target groups, those actively interested in the company are consistently more positive than the corresponding target group as a whole.
10. Among those annual reports included in the survey, Ahold achieved second place. In our view, the absolute level of the score leaves room for improvement.
11. With two out of four target groups readership percentages have risen. With the financial press and the private investors, the situation is stable.
Profile annual report
12. In relative terms, the readability and the informative character received the strongest support. A salient detail is that, on the whole, readability scored higher than the informative character. With the analysts, however, it was just the other way round. The high support for the description of well designed and the support for PR-story in every target group, lead us to suspect that the financial world is beginning to lose the balance between content and appearance.
Website
14. With all target groups, the position achieved by Ahold with respect to website visitor rates is well above the average. The company is runner up in with respect to this index number.
1. Introduction
Severe drop response rate in twelfth edition of the National Investor Relations Survey
In the summer of 2001, the 12th successive annual Rematch investor relations study took place. Unlike any of the previous editions of this survey, the overall response rate dropped substantially. We think that the following factors may have contributed to this sudden reversal in response. First of all the decrease in response among the portfolio managers and analysts/-advisors may be partly caused by the ongoing internationalisation and sector orientation with which those two target groups are faced. The Dutch fund managers and financial analysts seem to show less interest in Dutch stocks. Particularly midcap and smallcap stocks have to pay for this policy.
The bear market that prevails for the last couple of months has caused some reluctance from the side of private investors to be actively involved with (Dutch) stock investments. We are under the impression that momentarily they mark time with showing their interest in distinct stocks. Moreover we were forced to delay the distribution of the surveys until mid July. Holidays may have hindered the completion of the surveys as well.
Like last year, the private investor was represented by members of the NCVB, the Dutch Association of Investment Study Clubs, and by (a sampling of) members of the VEB, a Dutch shareholders association.
written study for private investors; verbal interviews with other target groups
Identical survey sheets were used for the separate target groups. As in previous years, verbal interviews were conducted on the basis of the relevant question lists with the financial press, the portfolio managers, and the analysts. The private investors participated in writing. In the table below, the response is shown per separate target group for 2001 and 2000.
A fixed part and core activity of the survey is the inventarisation of the market perception with regard to the IR policy of Dutch (listed) companies. Besides the AEX- and AMX funds, a selection was made of less actively traded stocks, real estate mutual funds, and some companies which have no listing yet. After a total overview of the opinions of the IR efforts of the past year, an analysis per target group is given of the average ratings and the distribution of the ratings, the response rate and the coverage rate. Insofar as data is available, comparisons are also made with previous years. The stock profiles, if available, are then discussed in paragraph 4. Finally, paragraph 5 looks at the respondents opinion of the annual report.
Appendix 1 shows the ranking of stocks involved in the survey and the results . A summary of the annual report evaluations is shown in appendix 2. Appendix 3 shows the visitors rates of a selection of websites of Dutch companies.
2. Investor relations scores Ahold
2.1 Summary IR results 2001
portfolio managers analysts / advisors financial press private investors total
AH1 mean AH mean AH mean AH mean mean rank7
score2` 8.1 6.1 8.2 6.3 7.7 6.2 7.5 6.0
standard deviation3 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.0 1.3
response rate (%)4 61 60 48 36 76 68 74 57
coverage rate (%)5 67 62 44 34 78 66 82 48
IR-rating6 9.4 9.1 8.9 8.6 9.0 1
Commentary:
1. In the first column of figures (for each target group) the average results of Koninklijke Ahold NV (=AH) are given. The second column shows the comparable average figures of the stock category in question (mean), which in this case is the AEX stocks.
2. Respondents were asked to give a mark on a scale from 1 (extremely poor) to 10 (excellent) to the IR policies of (each of) the AEX stocks, AMX stocks, the other Dutch stocks, real estate mutual funds, and stocks of companies which are not (yet) listed.
3. The value of the standard deviation indicates whether the opinions can be characterised as being homogeneous or heterogeneous. A homogeneous judgement, corresponding with a low standard deviation, implies that respondents more or less agree with each other. A heterogeneous judgement, shown by a high standard deviation, implies the respondents opinions vary to a great extent.
4. The response rate indicates the percentage of respondents of a given target group which actually rated Ahold.
5. The coverage rate indicates the percentage of respondents of a given target group which either monitor or invest in Ahold. Respondents who have shown no interest in any stock whatsoever, are excluded from the calculation of this ratio.
6. The IR-ratings for each separate target group is the outcome of:
ï?· the average score (addition of all marks for a specific stock, divided by the total number of observations).
ï?· the response rate multiplied with the score, minus the mean score of that specific target group for the fund category [(score -/- mean) x response %].
7. The procedure used to determine the complete ranking of the AEX stocks is described below:
The IR-ratings of each of the four separate target groups are added up. The sum is divided by 4, in order to have an equal weight for each target group. The results are then ranked with an accuracy of 2 decimals.
2.2 IR-rating Ahold 2001
The IR rating is based to a considerable extent on the IR policy scores of the participating stocks. Besides the scores, the response rate is also important: When a company is awarded a 10 by five portfolio managers, a different value is attached to the resulting average score 10 than to an average score of 8, brought about by 30 portfolio managers who all awarded the company 8 points. In other words, the actual number of respondents should be taken into consideration as well.
portfolio managers analysts / advisors financial
press private investors total*** rank
score 8.1 8.2 7.7 7.5 7.9
mean 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.0 6.2
response rate 61 48 76 74 65
correction factor* + 1.2 + 0.9 + 1.1 + 1.1 + 1.1
IR-rating** 9.4 9.1 8.9 8.6 9.0 1
* correction factor per target group: (score .-/- mean) x response rate
** IR-rating per target group: score + (score .-/- mean) x response rate
*** total: addition of all marks for each separate target group, divided by 4.
Some observations (see also table on previous page):
ï?· The appreciation of the IR policy (the score) is good in two groups (portfolio managers and analysts). With the financial press and the private investors the score achieved is in the range very satisfactory to good. All target groups award Ahold with the highest rating of all companies.
ï?· The response percentages for the separate target groups cause the final IR-ratings to differ from the averages of the corresponding scores. This has had a significant positive effect for Ahold.
The overall IR-rating is a quite exceptional; and un-Dutch high grade of 9.0.
3. IR-scores of each target group
3.1 Portfolio managers
score standard deviation rank
AH mean m/i* AH mean m/i AH
2001 8.1 6.1 8.3 0.8 1.0 0.8 1
2000 7.7 6.4 7.7 0.7 1.0 0.8 1
1999 8.0 6.5 7.9 0.7 1.0 0.7 1
* monitors/investors
strongly improved assessment: IR policy is good
The assessment of Aholds IR policy has returned to the level of 1999 (and beyond). With that assessment, the company has achieved the highest value of the individual stocks. The drop in the average assessment of the AEX-stocks has accelerated with this target group. Historically, Ahold has always had an above-average value with this target group. The lowest mark for the IR policy of an AEX stock is 3.6, and the highest is 8.1.
opinions have become slightly less homogeneous
This years standard deviation has increased slightly over last years deviation. The combination of the mark and the standard deviation is good. This generally indicates a very stable and positive position with this target group.
On average for the category of AEX stocks, the evaluation falls into the segment between homogeneous and heterogeneous. The lowest standard deviation within this group is 0.0; the highest is 1.8.
monitors/investors with higher assessment more positive
The assessment of the monitors/investors of Ahold deviates positively from that of the total group of portfolio managers. The monitors/investors show a strong improvement in their appreciation with regard to Aholds IR-policy. The combination of a higher score and unmodified homogeneous opinions can be labelled as good.
first place
Ahold took first place with this target group.
response rate coverage rate
AH mean AH mean
2001 61 60 67 62
2000 57 49 76 62
1999 67 54 88 62
increase in response level
The response level of Ahold has increased. On average, there is also an increase. This increase is more than Aholds. Historically speaking, Ahold has consistently realised an above-average response. However the difference has now become marginal. The lowest value is 52% and the highest is 74%. Ergo Ahold can score progress in this respect.
coverage rate sinks further
Over the last four years, the coverage rate does show a continuous decline for Ahold, but with 67%, the company is still showing an above average performance. However the positive difference is levelling off. There are companies that surpass Ahold in this respect. The lowest coverage rate for a single company is 44%. The highest is 78%. With respect to the coverage rate, Ahold has insufficient distinguishing capacity with the portfolio managers.
3.2 Analysts / advisors
score standard deviation rank
AH mean m/i* AH mean m/i AH
2001 8.2 6.3 8.3 0.7 1.1 0.7 1
2000 8.1 6.6 8.3 0.9 1.0 0.7 1
1999 8.1 6.6 8.5 1.1 1.2 1.0 1
* monitors/investors
assessment slightly up
For this target group, too, the assessment of the Ahold IR policy is up. The level of 1997 has not yet been reached. In absolute terms, the IR policy is assessed as being good. The positive difference from the average of the AEX stocks has increased due to the decrease of the latter figure. The lowest mark is 3.9 and the highest mark is 8.2.
increasing homogeneous opinions with respect to Ahold
Regarding Ahold the value for the standard deviation has further decreased. Opinions have become more homogeneous. On the contrary, the average standard deviation of the AEX stocks has increased somewhat. This indicator is still located in the segment between homogeneous and heterogeneous. The combination of mark and standard deviation is good for Ahold. The lowest and highest values of the standard deviation are 0.5 and 1.8 respectively.
opinion of monitors/investors unchanged good
The assessment of the monitors/investors remains unchanged. The achieved result of 8.3 is exceptionally high. The gap with this total target group is positive and within a normal range.
The diversity in opinions among monitors/investors remains the same. The combination of mark and standard deviation is good.
first place
The higher IR score entitles Ahold first place with this target group.
response rate coverage rate
AH mean AH mean
2001 48 36 44 34
2000 60 50 54 37
1999 51 48 34 34
considerable drop in response
In accordance with the average development, the response of Ahold has also decreased greatly. The continuing specialisation in this target group normally leads to a decrease in response and penetration levels. The lowest response is 23% % and the highest is 55%.
large drop in coverage rate
The decrease in Aholds coverage rate level is quite considerable. The average also shows a decrease, but it is markedly less than Aholds. The distinguishing capacity with respect to this index number is also declining. The lowest penetration level is 18% and the highest is 50%.
3.3 Financial press
score standard deviation rank
AH mean m/i* AH mean m/i AH
2001 7.7 6.2 7.8 0.8 1.1 0.8 1
2000 7.7 6.2 7.7 0.8 1.1 0.7 1
1999 8.0 6.3 8.1 0.9 1.1 0.9 1
* monitors/investors
unchanged IR-score: nearly good
From this target group Aholds IR policy received the same score as the year before. The achieved result of 7.7 is the highest value of a single business, and equals the evaluation of 2000. On average, there is no change in the assessment of the IR policy of the AEX stocks. The assessment is just barely passing. The lowest mark in this target group is 4.0 and the highest mark is 7.7.
opinions remain homogeneous
The homogeneity in opinion has not changed. The combination of mark and standard deviation is good. In this target group, Ahold has a stable position. On average, the diversity of opinion also remained the same. The lowest value of the standard deviation is 0.8 and the highest is 1.9.
monitors/investors give higher mark
The assessment of the monitors/investors shows a slight increase. The mark of the sub-group rose 0.1 points. Opinions have become more homogeneous for the sub-group. The combination of mark and standard deviation is good for Aholds interested parties.
first place
First place was maintained with this target group.
response rate coverage rate
AH mean AH mean
2001 76 68 78 66
2000 71 67 78 62
1999 82 67 89 67
response increased
The response of this target group shows a small revival. Still, the achieved result of 76% is good. It is one of the highest values of a single stock for this target group. With that result, Ahold distinguishes itself positively from the average, which also shows a slight increase. The highest response level for this target group this year is 81%. The lowest value is 55%.
coverage rate unchanged
In contrast to the average development, the coverage rate for Ahold has not increased. The achieved result of 78% is above average, but it is not the highest value. The discriminatory capacity of Ahold has declined somewhat in relative terms. Considering the importance of free publicity Ahold should realise that competitive positions are perhaps changing. Other AEX stocks are also discovering the importance of the press. The lowest coverage rate is 44% and the highest is 88%.
3.4 Private investors
score standard deviation rank
AH mean m/i* AH mean m/i AH
2001 7.5 6.0 7.5 1.0 1.3 1.0 1
2000 7.4 6.3 7.4 1.0 1.2 1.0 1
1999 7.7 6.5 7.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 1
* monitors/investors
slightly higher assessment
In this sub-group, Ahold has obtained a slightly better figure than last year. However, of all distinct target groups, the private investors give the lowest valuation for Aholds IR-policy. Given the evaluations handed in by the other IR-target groups, we feel that a higher score with the private investors should be feasible. With this IR-target group, too, Ahold has realised the highest mark of the AEX stocks included. On average, there is a lower assessment. Ergo, Ahold has improved its position, both in absolute and in relative terms. The lowest mark for this target group is 3.6, the highest mark is 7.5.
diversity of opinion unchanged between homogeneous and heterogeneous
The high assessment is based on an opinion located in the segment between homogeneous and heterogeneous. The diversity of views is unchanged from last year. The combination of mark and standard deviation could be somewhat better. We still feel that the situation is satisfactory. The lowest and highest values of the standard deviation are 1.0 and 1.7 respectively.
For the AEX-stocks on average opinions have become heterogeneous. This is indicative of the ambivalent feelings and experiences with regard to several stocks.
opinion of monitors/investors identical to total
The monitors/investors among the private investors also gave Aholds IR policy a higher mark compared to last year. The difference in opinion with the non-active interested parties, regarding the mark and the standard deviation has now disappeared.
first place
With this target group Ahold also succeeded in taking first place. The company has turned out an excellent performance.
response rate coverage rate
AH mean AH mean
2001 74 68 82 48
2000 64 44 82 45
1999 70 50 81 42
increased response
This year the response for Ahold has increased. 74% of the respondents have an appraisal of the IR policy of the company. With this response rate, Ahold has achieved a better position than the other AEX stocks. It is notable that on average the response rate for the AEX-stocks has increased strongly as well. This corresponds with other research conducted by Rematch that also revealed that private investors have shifted their investments into the direction of AEX stocks. The highest response in this target group is 74%. A response of 40% is the minimum here.
stable coverage rate
As of 1994 (with a small dip in 1998), Ahold slowly but surely succeeded in interesting more individuals in their business. The last three years a satiation seems to be taking place.The achieved coverage rate (82%) is well above the level of the average of these stocks (48%). Both the average and the lowest values make it clear, as far as we are concerned, that a number of companies are not yet aware of the changes in the capital market. The interests of private investors has not been evoked sufficiently. The lowest coverage rate is 17% and the highest is 83%.
3.5 A group comparison
The figure below shows for each of the four separate target groups, (portfolio managers (PM), analysts/advisors (AN), financial press (FP) and private investors (PB)), the difference between the highest and the lowest score within a target group, the average score of all AEX stocks and the score of Ahold. The same is done with respect to the response and coverage rates.
Ahold number 1 in every target group
Ahold has achieved the highest mark for IR policy of every single target group. That is a huge achievement for the company. The graph shows that the variation width (difference between highest and lowest value) in the marks is lowest with the financial press, and highest with the portfolio managers.
response for Ahold good with three target groups
As far as the response levels are concerned, Ahold belongs to the top in three target groups. Only with the portfolio managers does Ahold occupy a position closer to average. The response rates of the portfolio managers are closest together. In the other target groups there is a larger variation width. This mainly concerns the analysts and private investors. We estimate that there is some room for growth for Ahold with the portfolio managers and the financial press.
coverage level of Ahold at top with private investors
For Ahold , there is a clear relationship between the response levels and the coverage rates. With the private investors, analysts and press, it occupies a place at or near the top. With the portfolio managers, it holds a more average position. The difference between the highest and the lowest value is largest for the private investors. The portfolio managers and the analysts/advisors have the smallest variation width.
4. Fund profile Ahold
Portfolio managers
global stock and at some distance growth stock, defensive stock and long-term investment
The most important characterisation for Ahold is that of global stock. Compared to last year the support has increased strongly. Growth stock, defensive stock and long-term investment follow some distance behind. The profile as such is quite inviting. The sexy character though, seems to be diminishing. The growth- exposure is levelling off, whereas that of defensive and widow and orphan stock is somewhat increasing. Negative undercurrents are absent completely.
The monitors/investors have a comparable profile, with the difference that particularly the support for global stock, long-term investment, growth stock and defensive stock are higher. The same shift manifested itself with the monitors/investors as with the total target group. With regard to global stock and growth stock this is notably stronger than in the total target group.
Analysts / advisors
global stock, growth stock and long-term investment
This target group has largely the same profile as the portfolio managers. However the underlying differences in the profile characteristics are less outspoken. It is striking that the outspoken character of last years profile has decreased. With this IR-target group the negative undercurrents are also non-existent.
The monitors/investors do place some other accents. The same profile characteristics though are applicable. Compared to last year, the endorsements for global stock, growth stock and long-term investment has decreased. On the contrary, defensive stock and widow and orphan stock are considered more relevant than in 2000. Therefore also with this target group there is a less sexy aura. Yet, the profile can be labelled as reasonably satisfactory even though Aholds growth-exposure seems to have reached a structurally lower level.
Financial press
global stock, long-term investment and defensive stock; shift in profile
Ahold is first and foremost seen as a global stock and a long-term investment. Defensive stock and growth stock follow some distance behind. A shift has appeared in the profile. This mainly concerns the growing amount of followers for defensive stock and the further declining amount of supporters for growth stock. Negative undercurrents are absent. We feel that the waning support for growth stock particularly is a cause of concern.
The monitors/investors distinguish the same characteristics, but are consistently more definite in their views.
Private investors
global stock and at some distance growth stock, long-term investment and defensive stock
The same image is perceived by this target group as by the other target groups. In our opinion the only dissonant is the support for speculative stock (modest as it is). As yet we are not inclined to be seriously concerned about this, but one should be vigilant.
Compared to last year, no material shifts have occurred. Only the direction in which shifts have manifested themselves varies from other target groups regarding the profile elements global stock and growth stock. The support for both elements has increased.
The monitors/investors by and large show the same profile. However, the endorsements for the individual relevant characterisations are somewhat higher than with the total population.
5. Overall judgement annual report Ahold
overall
2000 1999
AH mean AH mean
score (average) 7.3 6.7 7.5 7.0
readership % (not weighted) 44 19 43 18
rank 2 1
ï?· The assessment of the annual report has slightly deteriorated. The evaluation is still above average for the 23 annual reports included in the survey.
ï?· Aholds annual report comes in at the second place for the assessment.
ï?· The highest score was a 7.9 for the annual report of Heijmans and the lowest was a 5.4 for NUON.
ï?· The readership percentage of Aholds annual report and the average hardly changed at all.
ï?· The readership % extreme values are 3 and 59% respectively
5.1 Judgement annual report Ahold per target group
portfolio managers
total monitors/investors
2000 1999 2000 1999
AH mean AH mean AH
score 7.2 6.9 7.5 6.6 7.5 7.5
standard deviation 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6
readership 78 27 45 25 71 64
rank 7 1
analysts/advisors
total monitors/investors
2000 1999 2000 1999
AH mean AH mean AH
score 7.5 7.1 7.4 7.2 7.8 7.5
standard deviation 0.9 0.9 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.3
readership 34 19 31 21 64 68
rank 4 7
Portfolio managers
very satisfactory, homogeneous evaluation of Ahold annual report and seventh place
The assessment of the annual report can be considered very satisfactory (7.2). Compared to last year, a lower mark was realised. This shift is contrary to the average shift. Seemingly there are other annual reports that better meet the needs of portfolio managers. The lowest value given by this target group is 6.0, and the highest is 7.5.
The evaluation is based on homogeneous views, but the homogeneity has declined somewhat. The combination of mark and standard deviation is still satisfactory. The highest standard deviation is 1.5 and the lowest is 0.0.
The readership percentage (78%) has risen considerably and is much higher than average, which has also risen slightly. The lowest readership percentage is 0% and the highest is 78%.
The corresponding values for the monitors/investors are better than the values for the total target group of portfolio managers. This means a higher score (7.5) for a more homogeneous opinion and a somewhat lower readership percentage (71%).
Analysts / advisors
slightly higher assessment, homogeneous opinion and higher readership percentage
The assessment of the annual report has marginally increased with 0.1 tot 7.5. With this score Ahold achieves an above average result. The evaluation is homogeneous at present. The combination of score and standard deviation is very satisfactory. The highest average score for an annual report with this target group is 8.4, and the lowest is 6.0. The extremes in the standard deviation are 1.2 and 0.0.
The fourth place with this target group is good. However there is an ample distance between Aholds annual report and the one that tops the list.
The increased readership percentage with this total target group (34%) of Aholds annual report is far from the average, in fact it is the highest %. The lowest is percentage is 0%.
Among the monitors/investors, the assessment of the annual report, a 7.8, is amply above that of the total target group. The difference from last year is not substantial. The evaluation has become homogeneous.
The readership percentage among the monitors/investors is considerably higher.
financial press
total monitors/investors
2000 1999 2000 1999
AH mean AH mean AH
score 7.3 6.6 7.6 6.9 7.5 7.7
standard deviation 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7
readership 40 25 41 26 53 53
rank 2 1
private investors
total monitors/investors
2000 1999 2000 1999
AH mean AH mean AH
score 7.3 6.4 7.4 7.0 7.3 7.4
standard deviation 0.9 1.3 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9
readership 46 17 45 15 51 52
rank 2 2
Financial press
lower mark, still more than sufficient, evaluation less homogeneous, first place missed
The financial press is less enthusiastic about the Ahold annual report this year. The realised result of 7.3 implies a serious setback. The company lost its first-place position with this target group. On average, the assessment also deteriorated.
The diversity in the evaluations has increased somewhat. The views are less homogeneous. The combination of mark and standard deviation is moving in the wrong direction.
The highest value for an annual report with this target group is a 7.4 and the lowest is a 5.6. The values of the standard deviations lie between 1.4 and 0.0.
readership percentage down somewhat
On average the readership percentage has decreased somewhat for Aholds annual report as well as for the other annual reports that were listed in this survey. The extreme values are 68% and 4%.
monitors/investors slightly more positive and a more homogeneous evaluation
The mark from the monitors/investors has decreased somewhat less, and is again higher than that of the total target group. The views are homogeneous in this sub-group as well. The readership percentage of the monitors/investors has remained the same.
Private investors
marginally lower mark, unchanged homogeneous and second place
The private investors awarded a 0.1 point lower mark to the annual report for 2000 as they did to the annual report for 1999. The 7.3 is far above the much lower average mark, in fact it is the highest mark (rounded) for a single annual report. The lowest is 5.0. Ahold has maintained the second place with this target group.
The diversity in the evaluation is unchanged and is still homogeneous. On average, the diversity has increased, and it is a heterogeneous assessment. The lowest value for the standard deviation is 0.9 and the value 2.1 is highest.
somewhat higher readership percentage
Readership percentage has hardly changed for this target group either. Ahold, with its readership percentage of 46%, has performed much better than the average of the companies. The 17% indicates that, on average, one of every six respondents reads the annual report of these companies. The extremes for this indicator are 67% and 0%
For the monitors/investors, the same results were achieved as for this total target group. Only the readership percentage is somewhat higher in this subgroup.
5.2 Profile annual report
The relative support for each of the profile elements of the annual report is presented in the table below. The denominator of the percentages shown in each column with the heading total is the number of respondents who have stated that they have read at least one annual report.
in % portfolio managers analysts / advisors financial press private investors
total m/i* total m/i* total m/i* total m/i*
well designed 22 8 16 33 12 12 20 11
good work of reference 11 - 8 7 16 12 10 6
readable 22 17 11 20 28 24 22 13
informative 22 8 18 27 24 20 21 12
too thick - - 3 - 4 - - -
dry as dust - - - - 4 - 1 1
PR-story 11 8 16 33 8 4 6 3
too financial - - - - - - - -
dull - - 3 - 4 - 1 1
readability and informative character receive strongest emphasis; well designed in third place
It is striking that readability grosso modo scores somewhat better than informative. Exactly the opposite is customary in this situation. In combination with the greater support for well designed and the existing support for PR-story with every target group, we are inclined to assume that for the financial world the balance between content and appearance threatens to be lost.
Only analysts give more support to informative value than to readability. The same applies for the monitors/investors among the distinct IR-target groups.
5.3 Visitors numbers to website
* number of respondents who has visited a website / total number of respondents per target group
** number of respondents who have visited a website / number of respondents who have visited one or more websites.
Respondents who have visited no websites are excluded.
Aholds website is becoming more popular
All target groups seem to have shown more interest in the whereabouts of Ahold as evidenced by the increased visitors rate of Aholds website. With these target groups Aholds visitors rate is well above the average rate,
but there is still ample room for improvement.
Appendix 1
Ranking
Ranking AEX stocks, AMX stocks, (selection of) other stocks, (selection of) real estate mutual funds and (a selection of) unlisted stocks
Ranking AEX stocks
IR-rating 01 IR-rating 01-00
1. Ahold 9.0 *
2. Koninklijke Olie 7.6 + 0.1
3. AEGON 7.6 - 0.1
4. Unilever 7.6 + 1.0
5. TNT Post Group (TPG) 7.3 + 0.6
6. Heineken 7.1 - 0.1
7. Akzo Nobel 7.1 + 0.4
8. Philips Electronics 6.9 - 0.7
9. ASM Lithography 6.8 0.0
10. DSM 6.7 + 0.1
11. Elsevier 6.7 + 1.4
12. Fortis (NL) 6.5 - 0.1
13. Hagemeyer 6.2 - 0.2
14. VNU 6.1 - 0.8
15. Wolters Kluwer 6.1 + 0.4
16. ABN AMRO 5.9 - 0.6
17. KPNQwest 5.7 *
18. Numico 5.6 - 1.7
19. Gucci Group 5.2 - 0.2
20. Getronics 4.6 -1.5
21. KPN 4.4 -3.1
22. Versatel Telecom International 3.9 -2.2
23. Buhrmann 3.6 -3.5
24. UPC 2.6 - 2.3
mean IR-rating 2001: 6.1 mean IR-rating 2000: 6.3
Appendix 2
Score annual reports
Scores annual reports
Appendix 3
Websites
Websites