Reporting on lightly covered companies means we are often the only ones checking a claim. This policy describes the verification every article goes through before it appears on this site.
Primary documents come first
Wherever a fact can be established from an original document, we use that document rather than a secondary description of it. In practice that means regulatory filings, official exchange announcements, court and agency records, audited financial statements, and companies' own published materials.
Where an article states a financial figure — revenue, cash position, share count, dilution, insider transactions — that figure is traced to a filing or an official statement, and we link to the source so readers can check it themselves.
Claims we treat with particular caution
Some categories of claim are unusually common in this sector and receive extra scrutiny before we repeat them:
- Announcements of contracts, partnerships or letters of intent where the counterparty has not confirmed the arrangement.
- Projected revenues, production figures or timelines with no filed basis.
- Claims about regulatory approvals, patents or clinical results that can be checked against a public register — so we check them.
- Biographies and track records of executives and directors.
- Anything reaching us through a promotional mailing, an unsolicited tip or a message board.
Where a claim cannot be independently verified, we either leave it out or attribute it plainly to whoever made it, so readers can see that it is a company's assertion rather than an established fact.
Sourcing standards
We prefer named sources speaking on the record. Anonymity is granted only where a source faces genuine risk and the information matters, and never to allow unattributed attacks on a company. We consider whether a source stands to gain financially from what they are telling us, and disclose that where relevant.
Single-source reporting on a significant claim is avoided. Material allegations are corroborated by a second independent source or a document before publication.
Editorial review
Every article is reviewed by an editor before publication. The editor checks that each factual assertion is supported by a cited source, that figures match the underlying documents, that headlines reflect the body of the article, and that any required disclosure of a financial interest is present.
Right of reply
Where we make a substantive criticism of a company, we put the substance to them before publication and allow reasonable time for a response. Their reply, or the fact that they declined to comment, appears in the article.
When we get it wrong
No process catches everything. When an error reaches publication we correct it openly and record what changed, under our correction policy.
Report an inaccuracy
If you believe something we have published is inaccurate, write to contact@microcapobserver.com with the article, the specific statement, and any supporting documentation. We review every report we receive.