Gosh, I really feel like I understand the rationale and the forward plan now.
I suspect any explanation of those terms would need to be on their investors page.
https://investors.xerox.com/news-and-events/presentations-we...
Parent said "but I'm not privy to some of the investor calls where they elaborate on how they define these terms. Typically things like "business unit operating model" will be illuminated / detailed in other presentations with a smaller audience". I'm saying that I think that Xerox can't be explaining things in this much depth to some investors but not others.
Certainly Xerox can give information to CNBC to release to all investors (who read CNBC) at roughly the same time. It's basically public since everybody has CNBC access but a private presentation is by definition not public.
> In principle the companies are not supposed to give the investors material nonpublic information during these conversations. In practice, the conversations are not social calls. The analysts hope to get something out of them. It's rarely "our earnings are going to be way better than anyone expected." It might be something vaguer and squishier than that: hints, body language, a general sense of how management thinks about the world, its industry, its competition, its opportunities. Or it might be something much narrower and more specific: The company might help the analyst with particular line items in her model, adding nuance to her sophisticated understanding of its financial situation.
Specific clarification on details of their new "business unit operating model" would be a relatively normal thing to talk about. It's not something that is a smoking gun for insider trading, but can be written off as just general clarification of an industry term of art. This would be a normal thing for business analysts to get a deeper dive into.
0: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2015-07-31/when-c...
> These things are plausibly not "material nonpublic information." But they are obviously things that investors want. That's why investors meet with companies. That's why investors who meet with companies perform better than those who don't. And all of this is legal. Or legal-ish. Or at least in a broad gray area between legal and illegal.
> shift to a business unit operating model
Translates to "dividing the company by product, and evaluating each product independently". What's meaningful.
The rest of it is completely bullshit though. But I really liked "balanced execution priorities", that's an entirely antisemantic expression, you either have priorities or you don't.
Nobody who really cares is reading the generic press release; if the performance of Xerox is strongly relevant to your interests then you have better sources of information.
The presser is just something for the comics to reprint verbatim, the more meaningless it is the better because that prevents it being in any way legally actionable.