IR Monitor – 04 March 2026

In this week’s newsletter:

• ‘IR must retool to nudge machines instead of humans’: Vodafone’s Matt Johnson on how the investor relations profession will need to adapt to a new era
• More impact but less disclosure: Alphaville on sell-side research in the Substack era
• The Independent asks: could AI be the next boardroom scandal? It operates autonomously and opaquely which can expose companies to investor litigation
• SpaceX’s mega IPO redraws 2026 road map: one group isn’t cheering, according to BBG
• Will your investors support your strategic pivot? asks the Harvard Business Review
• And finally … The Wall Street Journal on the corporate jargon we hate the most. Our favourite at the IR Monitor is the ever-nebulous “stakeholders” 

This week’s news

‘IR must retool to nudge machines instead of humans’ – Matt Johnson 

Investor relations teams must adapt their craft to influence algorithms as well as analysts, as AI reshapes how capital markets consume information. Speaking to IR Impact, Matthew Johnson (Group Communications Director at Vodafone) argues that IR must “relearn and retool to nudge machines instead of humans”, shifting from pure behavioural psychology to understanding how technology ranks and interprets disclosures. A former sceptic turned “evangelist” after seeing what AI could achieve “in seconds”, Johnson urges teams to experiment, noting that AI will not replace IROs but those who use it well may gain an edge. As the IR skillset stretches further into data and technology, the mechanics of how machines digest corporate narratives may become as important as the narrative itself.

Sell-side research and Substack 

Market-moving, entertainment-driven investment research is increasingly escaping the regulated, disclosure-heavy frameworks that once reshaped Wall Street. The FT contrasts Meredith Whitney’s 2007 note on Citigroup, complete with six pages of disclaimers and followed by an 8% share price fall, with a recent Substack report by Citrini Research that carried no disclosures, only a prompt to “upgrade to paid”. Titled The 2028 Global Intelligence Crisis, the report triggered share price declines of 4% or more in several stocks. Citrini founder James van Geelen, not a registered analyst or broker, is behind the top ranked finance newsletter on the platform, with his most popular post gathering 9.8mn views on X in the first few days after going live. Citrini reportedly charges $999 a year and van Geelen potentially earns more than $4m pa, highlighting how influence, monetisation and conflicts can now sit outside traditional bank-led oversight.

AI: the next boardroom scandal?

AI’s growing role in corporate decision-making risks becoming the next flashpoint for governance failures. The Independent reports that legal advisers at Gowling WLG warn directors their duties now extend to AI oversight, requiring scrutiny of explainability, data provenance and accountability for harm. Boards must actively manage ethical, operational and ESG risks while ensuring practices align with stated corporate values. The article points to litigation such as Getty Images v Stability AI and the Dutch child benefits scandal as reminders of how quickly opaque systems can create legal, financial and reputational damage. With some directors’ and officers’ insurance policies beginning to exclude AI-related risks, and questions of personal liability no longer theoretical, effective governance now demands multidisciplinary oversight, continuous upskilling and far more frequent risk assessment than previous waves of technology required.

SpaceX IPO redraws 2026 road map

What does SpaceX’s planned IPO in June mean for the other companies thinking about listing? Bloomberg explains. The potential $50 billion IPO on Nasdaq could be the largest one in history. The news has private investors in SpaceX and third parties involved in the IPO process, such as banks, excited as they stand to gain enormous returns and high service fees respectively. The IPO could also set a precedent for the listing of other private companies with extremely high valuations, such as Anthropic and OpenAI, who are also said to be preparing to go public this year. However, it could also potentially overshadow mid/small-cap IPOs, with investor attention glued to SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI. With those three giants bigger than 95% of S&P 500 companies, companies and buyout firms considering IPOs this year may be better off moving forward IPO timelines to avoid “competing for attention”, as PE firm EQT plans to do.  There is upside: these high-profile mega IPOs could draw more investors into the market during its recovery from a post-pandemic slump, creating a trickle-down effect for smaller new listings. 

Will your investors support your strategic pivot? Harvard Business

The Harvard Business Review (HBR) warns of what happens when company strategy ceases to align with the vision of legacy investors. Where investors have ‘bought in’ to a certain narrative and long-term vision about a company as a result of targeted investor outreach, miscalculated strategic pivots can cost momentum, billions in market value and even a C-suite’s job. Past blunders show that CEOs must rigorously assess investor preference before pursuing major strategic changes. HBR offers a new approach to doing so, with traditional tools such as ownership analytics, quarterly perception surveys, and proxy advisers often missing nuanced shareholder expectations. By calculating an ‘investor fit risk score’ using investor reactions to past strategic changes and activism alongside engagement patterns at annual meetings, boardrooms can more accurately anticipate friction and proactively manage strategic change. 

And finally … the corporate jargon we hate the most from the Wall St Journal

Take a 10,000-foot view on corporate jargon with The Wall Street Journal in this deep dive into the phrases that its readers loathe the most. Does this long list of hated phrases obscure what we are really trying to say, or are they actually useful expressions to help us communicate uniquely corporate experiences? Readers’ responses seem to suggest the former, with particular frustration pointed at phrases that can be easily substituted with everyday speech – for example, “leverage” vs “use”. Many of these complaints are directed at the C-suite, perhaps serving as a lesson to leadership that what investors and other “stakeholders” (a broad term typically referring to anyone at all with the slightest interest in a particular business) really want is clear, jargon-free messaging to help them understand the company’s strategic direction.