Nasdaq Baltic exchanges identify and award the best companies in the Baltic market in terms of investor relations since 2006. The purpose of the Baltic Market Awards is to single out the best investor relations among the Baltic listed companies and thereby encourage all companies to focus on improving their investor relations practices. Read more here.

Question Title

* 1. Information about you

Question Title

* 2. Baltic Market Awards evaluation covers 6 aspects. Which aspects do you consider the most important? Please rank each of them from 1 to 5 (1 - low importance, 5 - high importance).

  Low importance
1
2 3 4 High importance
5
N/A
Annual report
Periodic reports
Corporate governance
Corporate disclosures
Interactive investor relations (issuers web page, webinars for investors, other events for investors)
Market professionals' evaluation

Question Title

* 3. Annual report evaluation covers the following parts. Please rank each part from 1 to 5 (1 - low importance, 5 - high importance).

  Low importance
1
2 3 4 High importance
5
N/A
Appearance/layout of the annual report
Key financial figures describing economic performance stated
Share and dividend related information
Information on largest shareholders
Fundamentals (vision, mission, goals of the company)
Segment reporting
Company risks described
Risk management policies described
Company's business environment described 
Corporate Social Responsibility
Basic information on share capital
Share related market information and trading information

Question Title

* 4. Periodic reports evaluation covers the following parts. Please rank these parts from 1 to 5 (1 - low importance, 5 - high importance).

  Low importance
1
2 3 4 High importance
5
N/A
Appearance/layout of periodical reports
Information on the financial results
Segment reporting
Share related information and shareholdings
Early reporting (submission within period of 30 days after the reporting period)

Question Title

* 5. Corporate governance evaluation covers the following parts. Please rank each part from 1 to 5 (1 - low importance, 5 - high importance).

  Low importance
1
2 3 4 High importance
5
N/A
Dividend related information
Information on the Shareholders’ meetings
Personnel reporting
Information on management board and supervisory board members
Evaluation of board composition (sufficient number of independent members)
Interest of members of Management and Supervisory board in other companies
Information on auditing and internal audit

Question Title

* 6. Corporate disclosures evaluation covers the following parts. Please rank each part from 1 to 5 (1 - low importance, 5 - high importance).

  Low importance
1
2 3 4 High importance
5
N/A
Titles, summaries (Do the titles correspond to the content of the disclosures)
Structure of the disclosures
Additional information on the financial results (presentations, factsheets)
Financial reports published outside trading hours
Financial calendar available (states the publication dates for the reports)
Financial results on a monthly basis provided
Prognoses for the next financial period provided

Question Title

* 7. Interactive investor relations evaluations covers the following parts. Please rank each part from 1 to 5 (1 - low importance, 5 - high importance).

  Low importance
1
2 3 4 High importance
5
N/A
Information on largest shareholders available on the company's web
Accessibility of financial reports and other materials (presentations) on the company's web
Information on the profit distribution policy available on the company's web
Information on governance (information about the management board members and supervisory board members, articles of association) available on the company's web
Company’s announcements available on the company's web
Share trading related information available on the company's web
Interactive webinars for investors organized by the company's
Use of multimedia galleries (videos about the company,  videos/records from investor days) available on the company's web

Question Title

* 8. Should the evaluation be based on data analysis or rather on the opinion of market participants and other stakeholders? In latter case, who should be engaged in the evaluation process/whose opinion should be taken into account in order to determine the winners? How to minimize the risk of subjectivity?

Question Title

* 9. What do you like about the current BMA evaluation scope? Why do you consider those things to be relevant? What do you dislike about the current BMA evaluation scope? Why so, why are those things irrelevant?

Question Title

* 10. To which extent company specifics (deriving from sector, business model, etc.) should be taken into account?  Would it be reasonable to create separate evaluation criteria for banks, First North, large/small-cap companies as it has been made for bond issuers?

T