I would argue that a company could have all three of the above and still suffer a poor relative price performance in comparison with its industry, or investment peers. Because a company could have ignored the critical role played by an effective financial and investor communications program. And without first rate, intelligent outreach to targeted investors through direct contact, and the judicious use of the business and trade press, broadcast media and the Internet, a company simply won't contact the greatest number of the most appropriate investors. Revising the trend of management's predilection for running for cover when difficult market conditions prevail would help a great deal to build consistent value. Management gains considerable credibility with shareholders of all sizes by being out front and articulating their strategy in tough times.
Investors buy and sell public equities in all markets, bull or bear.
If I were a CEO or CFO I would want to know which investor could possibly purchase my company's shares under which market conditions. Boards of directors should desire to have those investors consider buying my stock based on a strong financial communications program in which the company's strategy and performance were thoughtfully articulated to the right investors by the CEO and CFO instead of third party pundits. Attracting new investors to improve liquidity and boost valuation through a solid financial communications program that focuses on the company's use of working capital to grow the business profitably is the best strategy. It is also a much better use of management's time and the company's capital than fretting with shareholders over the amount and duration of yet another buy-back program that will have little, if any, sustained impact on valuation.