Business & Finance News Reporting 媒體技能：Business & Finance News Reporting

Distilled from financial-journalism curricula at NCCU 新聞系、NTU 新聞研究所、Columbia Journalism Review (Business Desk), Medill (Business Journalism), CUNY Newmark, Reuters Institute. Covers the four main business-news sub-types: earnings / IPO-M&A / regulatory-policy / industry-trend reporting. Core mandate: every financial figure must trace to base period, scope (consolidated vs standalone; domestic vs group), source (CFO statement / 公開資訊觀測站 / analyst estimate), and confidence level (audited vs preliminary vs forecast). The non-obvious failure is when the literal number is correct but the missing context lets readers compare apples-to-oranges.

IRON LAW: Numbers Need Stewardship

Every financial figure in the piece — revenue, EPS, growth rate, margin,
valuation multiple — must explicitly carry FOUR metadata tags: (a) BASE
PERIOD / FISCAL YEAR (e.g., "113年度合併報表"), (b) SCOPE (consolidated
vs individual; domestic vs group; operating vs including-financial gains),
(c) SOURCE (CFO statement / 公開資訊觀測站 / analyst consensus / research
report), and (d) CONFIDENCE (audited / preliminary / forward-looking).
Without all four, the figure is marked [待查證] or omitted. Default LLM
behavior is to drop context for "cleaner prose" or assume implied scope
— this suppresses that default by requiring explicit stewardship. The
reader cannot infer scope from a number alone; ambiguity is not efficiency.

Why this is non-obvious: a headline "Company posts record 5B EPS" is technically true (audited, consolidated, 2025 FY) but sounds miraculous without the context that it's 50% higher than last year due to a one-time merger gain, not operating performance. When readers hear "record EPS", they assume baseline comparable operating earnings — a fundamental mismatch. Stewardship audit catches this by forcing every number to carry its scope flags.

Rationalization Table — these justifications DO NOT override the Iron Law:

Trigger conditions:

• User supplies financial material — 財報新聞、法說會逐字稿、公開說明書、投資人簡報、SEC EDGAR filing、IPO 招股書、重大訊息、併購公告 — and asks for a news piece.
• User asks for "財報季報導" / "IPO 新聞" / "併購分析" / "監理解讀" / "產業趨勢報導" / "earnings story" / "M&A coverage" / "regulatory impact piece".
• User paraphrases: "把這份財報做成新聞", "法說會怎麼寫", "SEC filing 有什麼亮點", "整理成市場分析", "寫一篇產業動向".

Input signals:

• Named companies, financial metrics (revenue, EPS, margin, P/E, ROA, EBITDA), fiscal periods, accounting bases.
• Earnings transcripts, investor presentations, regulatory filings, 公開資訊觀測站 announcements, analyst reports.
• Direct quotes from CFO, investor-relations staff, analysts, regulators.

When NOT to use:

• Company press release in the company's own voice → use pr-press-release.
• Investment thesis or buy/sell recommendation → use fin-investment-thesis.
• Marketing copy promoting a stock / fund / investment product → use mkt-*.
• General economic news without company-specific angle → use med-news-reporter (not this beat).

Step 0: Defer general workflow to med-news-reporter

Read or have already loaded med-news-reporter for: material audit, fact-checking, source-strength tagging, balance principle, media-ethics check, media-literacy self-check. Do not re-implement those steps here. This file specializes Steps 1, 2, 3, and adds a business-specific Step 4 (Number Provenance Audit).

Step 1: Classify the business-story sub-type

If material spans sub-types (e.g., an earnings call with M&A announcement), classify by the primary news driver.

Step 2: Source vetting & financial credibility

Every number must carry four metadata flags:

1. Base period — "113 年度" / "113 年 Q2" / "累計 1-6 月" / "2026 財年" (date ambiguity kills credibility)
2. Scope — 合併報表(consolidated) vs 個體/個別(individual); 國內(domestic) vs 國際(international); 持續營業(operating) vs including 停業部門; 經常(operating income) vs including 業外(non-operating/financial gains)
3. Source — CFO statement (audited) / 公開資訊觀測站 preliminary / analyst consensus / research firm estimate / internal forecast
4. Confidence — 已審定(audited) / 未審(unaudited) / 初步(preliminary) / 預估/展望(forward-looking, include risk disclaimer)

Source tier tagging (extends med-news-reporter's tiering with financial-specific tiers):

Step 3: Business-specific risk check

Beyond med-news-reporter's general ethics check, add:

1. 內線交易 / 市場操縱 (證交法 §155, §157-1):

   • 重大訊息 publication timing: 公開資訊觀測站 timestamp, not press-release timing. If material info disclosed before 公開資訊觀測站 publication, that is non-public — reporting it may expose risk.
   • Embargo rules: some companies embargo financial information until official release time; publishing early can expose the reporter to liability.

2. 會計舞弊紅旗 — watch for:

   • Revenue recognition shifting (e.g., quarter-end channel-stuffing, sales to related parties, side agreements)
   • Margin compression with no explanation (could signal pricing power loss or cost hiding)
   • Huge accounts-receivable growth without revenue growth (cash-flow risk)
   • One-time items that repeat (no longer "one-time"; operating deterioration masked)
   • Related-party transaction spike (transfer pricing risk)

3. 估值斷言需避免 — never write:

   • ❌ "The stock is fairly/overvalued at 12× P/E" (requires multiple-comparison context)
   • ❌ "Company is worth 100B" (absent valuation method disclosure)
   • ✅ "Stock trades at 12× P/E vs peer median 18×, suggesting discount or slower growth"

4. 匯率影響揭露 — when international revenue/EPS is cited:

   • Always state currency basis. If reporting "EPS $2.50 USD", note if converted at spot or fixed rate.
   • When Y-o-Y comparisons span periods with different FX rates, disclose FX headwind/tailwind separately from operating impact.

5. 重大訊息揭露合規:

   • 公開資訊觀測站 公告 = 官方發布 — use as primary source.
   • 公司新聞稿 ≠ 公開資訊觀測站 公告 — they can have different timestamps and scopes.
   • Report based on 公開資訊觀測站 timestamp + regulatory-filing scope, not company PR spin.

Step 4: Number Provenance Audit (business-specific addition)

For every financial figure in the draft:

1. Trace to source material — find the exact line in the earnings transcript, filing, or 公開資訊觀測站 announcement.
2. Tag base period — write the fiscal year/quarter in parentheses: "營收 100 億 (113年度)", not just "營收 100 億".
3. Declare scope — if the figure is consolidated, write it; if it's guidance, mark "展望". If unusual (e.g., pro-forma), say so.
4. Check for one-time items — if EPS or margin is boosted by a gain, segregate: "Operating EPS $1.20, including $0.30 one-time merger gain".
5. Validate comparisons — if claiming "grew 15%", verify: versus what base year/quarter? Same period last year or trailing-twelve-months? Same scope?

Use the med-news-reporter base format, with these business-beat additions to the meta footer:

[Headline / sub-headline / body paragraphs per med-news-reporter]

---

**稿件類型**: 財報季報導 / IPO新聞 / 併購分析 / 監理解讀 / 產業趨勢
**字數**: approx. XXX
**消息來源層級**: 公開資訊觀測站 N / 財報/法說會 N / 分析師 N / 媒體轉述 N
**財務數字稽核**:
- 基期 (fiscal year/quarter) 完整性: ✅ / ⚠️ (列出未標的數字)
- 範圍 (consolidated/individual, operating/including one-time) 清晰: ✅ / ⚠️ (列出未指明的)
- 來源與可信度 (audited/preliminary/forecast) 標記: ✅ / ⚠️ (列出未確認的)
- 匯率基準 (if applicable): ✅ / N/A / ⚠️
- 一次性項目隔離: ✅ / N/A / ⚠️ (如有列出影響幅度)
**分析師利益揭露**: ✅ (列出所有分析師所屬機構 + 評級) / N/A / ⚠️
**會計舞弊紅旗檢查**: ✅ / ⚠️ (列出可疑項目)
**估值斷言**: ✅ (無不當斷言) / ⚠️ (列出待補充比較基準的)
**證交法合規檢查**:
- 重大訊息揭露時點 (公開資訊觀測站 vs 新聞稿時差): ✅ / ⚠️
- 內線交易風險: ✅ / ⚠️ (列出可疑之處)
**待查證事項**: ...
**倫理 / 識讀檢核摘要**: 〔交給 med-news-reporter 的 Step 4-5 footer〕

Good Example

Scenario: User supplies (a) 103 Tech Corp 113年度年報 & 法說會逐字稿 (audited consolidated statement); (b) 公開資訊觀測站 重大訊息 (published 2026-04-15 12:30); (c) two sell-side analyst reports (one "buy" rated, one "neutral", both from top-3 brokers, with latest price targets); (d) peer comparison from Bloomberg (P/E multiples of 5 competitors). Request: ~1,000-word earnings story analyzing the year, growth drivers, and valuation context.

Analysis:

1. Step 1: classified as earnings reporting (annual results with guidance implications) → focus on revenue scope, margin one-time segregation, YoY base-period clarity.
2. Step 2: Source vetting — 年報 is audited (Tier 1, 已審定); 法說會逐字稿 is investor-facing (Tier 1, 來自公司); analyst reports are Tier 2 (include firm name + rating); Bloomberg is market data (Tier 1, 時間戳記重要).
3. Step 3: Risk check — examine revenue for related-party sales spike; check if guidance has side agreements or channel-stuffing patterns; look for margin compression signals.
4. Step 4 (Number Audit):
   • "營收 500 億" → write "113年度合併營收 500 億元,同期 112年度 450 億,年成長 11.1%"
   • "EPS 2.50 元" → write "基本每股盈餘 2.50 元 (113年度,已審定);其中包括業外投資收益 0.30 元"
   • "預估今年成長 8%" → write "公司展望 114 年營收成長 8% (保守估計,面臨匯率與原料成本變數)"
   • Peer comparison: "本益比 15× vs 同業平均 18× … 反映市場對成長率的差異評估"
5. Output footer标示数字完整性 ✅, 分析师利益揭露 (两名分析师名字+评级+机构), 无会计舞弊信号 ✅, 估值对标完备 ✅.

Result: 读者可独立验证每个数字的基期、范围、来源;可区分运营增长 vs 一次性收益;可理解分析师评级背后的利益关系。

Bad Example

Scenario: Same input material. Writer produces a "rosy" story by (a) stating "103 Tech posts record 500B revenue" without mentioning it's consolidated and includes a one-time acquisition; (b) claiming "EPS 2.50 is strong growth" without checking it includes a 0.30 one-time item (actual operating EPS only 2.20); (c) citing one analyst's "buy" rating as justification that stock is "undervalued" without disclosing the analyst owns 5% of the firm and has conflicts; (d) stating "P/E of 15 is attractive" without peer comparison; (e) omitting the 4-day gap between 公開資訊觀測站 publication and company press release.

What went wrong:

• (a) & (b): Scope ambiguity and one-time masking. Both the 500B and 2.50 EPS are literally true, but reader confuses operating performance with windfall gains. Iron Law violation: missing stewardship metadata.
• (c): Analyst conflict undisclosed. If the analyst's firm holds stock, that holding shapes the rating; reader needs to know. Same if the analyst is compensated by deal fees.
• (d): Valuation without context. "Attractive" requires comparison. 15× versus 18× peer average tells one story; versus 12× historical average tells another.
• (e): Timing gap ignored. If company disclosed in 公開資訊觀測站 on day X and press release on day X+4, and the reporter relied on the press release without noting the official disclosure timestamp, readers misunderstand what counts as "material" information.

Net effect: Story reads fluent and "positive", but every number is decontextualized. Readers cannot independently assess the company's actual operating performance vs. one-time boosts, or evaluate analyst credibility. This is the failure mode the Stewardship Audit exists to catch.

Related skills:

• med-news-reporter — general news workflow (this skill specializes it)
• data-financial-analysis — deeper analysis of financial metrics & ratio modeling
• stat-hypothesis-testing — for statistical rigor in trend claims
• hum-source-criticism — source vetting frameworks for analyst credibility