Scoops vs Insights - two types of intelligence

Investors I speak with who are weighing up moves in Spain generally come to me with two types of reputational due diligence requests.

1️⃣ They want ‘scoops’ — high-value, factual pieces of information unavailable in the public domain that help them quickly identify major issues affecting a target company. This requires posing direct questions to well-placed sources:

·     “When will the regulatory investigation into Company X conclude, and what is the company’s expected liability (i.e. penalty size)?”
·     “What is the conflict-of-interest risk related to Director A’s involvement in Venture Y?”

But scoops by themselves can be limited, because fact-finding is not the same as obtaining a fully-formed analytical picture.

2️⃣ Other investors want 'insights' — perspectives on trends or changes to operating and regulatory environments. This type of intelligence may be much more valuable than scoops, as it lends itself toward longer term, strategic thinking:

·     "How likely is it that Regulator X will intensify investigation and enforcement actions in relation to Y issue in the next two years?"
·     "Is Company X changing its governance procedures to better manage conflicts of interest?"

Insights may not have the immediate appeal of Scoops as ‘magic buttons’ to press in case of emergency, but they often produce the kind of actionable intelligence on reputational risks that investors need to support strategic decisions.