I read the article. It seems to me the author was more interested in fanning the flames of a probable non-existent fire than in digging in and finding the truth. After all, there is Investor Relations to contact. I think he should at least have posed the question to IR and then quoted the answer. It might have been a poor answer (feeding the fire) but it might also have been a thorough explanation of the potential discrepancy the author is so insistent on exposing.
The author is not identified. It says GLG Expert contributor. You can read his/her other articles (may have "Red Flag" in the title!) but you can't find out who it is. Pretty poor information format on the part of GLG if you ask me! Its about as loose as Yahoo allowing people to have several identities and post on message boards using all identities. But we all KNOW what we're dealing with here. The GLG site seems to be pretending to be a bunch of authorities in different fields that are "helping" each other understand problems by providing free input. Here's their self definition:
"Intelligently connecting institutions and expertise. Gerson Lehrman Group (GLG) is the global marketplace for expertise. Since 1998, its technology-enabled platform for collaboration and consultation has helped the world's leading institutions find, engage, and manage experts across a broad range of industries and disciplines."
In the last sentence of their definition though, they say:
"erson Lehrman Group focuses exclusively on providing a platform for consultation and collaboration. GLG does not write reports or take published positions, make product recommendations or offer investment advice."
They are a "platform". I take that as another way of saying "glorified message board". I'd toss this "red flag" memo back into the wind and ignore it. But thanks for alerting me to the grandiose message board called Gerson Lehrman Group! Actually the do a few other things besides operating a message board, but that's the part we encountered here.