4/22/2005: So then um.. you know, who's uhh, sort of, running the uhhh.. you know, the economy?
Lately I've been working on financial transcripts - proofing, researching, correcting, etc. Many public stock companies hold telephone conference calls every few months, in which CEOs, CFOs, COOs and other acronym'd people report their companies' earnings & losses and other relevant data for interested parties and ultimately, their stockholders.
Prominent stock analysts phone in to these meetings, where they presumably listen to the data presented, which is then followed by a Q&A period so the analysts can then.. analyze! And determine their recommendations as to whether that company's stock should be bought or sold.
While the company numbers speak for themselves to a certain extent, these analysts are paid a good amount of money to take those numbers and make accurate predictions from them, and to provide sound advice for investors. So they are a driving force in the stock market to some degree and thus the economy in general. I don't know how much influence their recommendations carry, but obviously they do carry some or these folks would have to find new careers.
These analysts are smart people obviously, highly educated, and experts in their respective fields. And yet, when listening to these calls and the analysts' questions for the corporate execs, most of them sound like uneducated, inarticulate slobs. Granted, the subject matter of these discussions is usually very detailed and highly specialized, the kind of stuff that goes <whoosh> over most of our heads, but I've never heard as many um's, uh's, you know's, I mean's, and sort of's as when these analysts present their questions. Many of them have a minimum of at least two you know's and two sort of's in every sentence.
The corporate execs are only a bit better in their responses, but to be fair, they're unprepared as to which questions will be asked specifically, and in which context. The analysts on the other hand, follow these company results for a living, and come to the conference calls already knowing which factors interest them. They also usually know how those factors are performing for a given corporation, and have often received the numbers before the conference calls take place. Yet even taking into account that they're speaking off the cuff as opposed to reading from a script, these sort of ana- or, I mean umm.. you know, fi- fi- umm.. you know, finance.. financial analysts.. they umm.. you know they still uhh.. sound like sort of, uhh, you know the most umm.. I mean, you know sort of un- umm.. un-.. unaware? of.. you know, the uhh.. sort of, subjects they're, you know, speaking about.. I mean, you know, speaking on.
I'm not exaggerating here. It's been an eye-opener for me. It makes me wonder who's really in charge of stock market trends and the economy at large, and if subtleties such as the inarticulate speech of these highly paid analysts could be affecting more than just my quandaries as to how to treat their stumbling messes in the written transcripts.
Incidentally, anyone may dial in to listen to these conference calls, and even ask questions. Many of the transcripts are freely available to the public, and many are also available with paid memberships to financial services providers. I'm sure they're profitable (or the transcription companies wouldn't exist) so I'm amazed how cheap those transcription companies are when paying their transcribers and editors. I'm paid by the minute, literally: both the total minutes of the conference call recording and the total minutes it takes me to check every word factor into my pay. So the more time it takes me, the less I get paid.. but working a little bit faster to get a little bit bigger paycheck is a bad plan, as they also reduce my pay for errors. Every error, individually, no matter how small, is deducted from my pay, even if the meaning or context is unaffected. Two or three errors that do affect meaning in an hour-long call results in pay that's close to minimum wage, as do four or five relatively insignificant errors. Even if I've caught and corrected hundreds made by the initial transcriber.
I do understand the importance of accuracy in these transcripts though, so I go through every one with a fine-tooth comb. The quality of audio transfer onto the web varies from call to call, and the use of cell and speaker phones also adds to the challenge. So I take longer than I should doing Google research, replaying indecipherable segments over and over, looking up industry acronyms and spellings of analysts' names, company brands, etc. in an attempt to avoid getting knocked down to a lower pay tier for getting a word or letter wrong. Keep in mind these calls talk about numbers in the millions and billions of dollars: the irony of scrambling to avoid a couple penalty dollars for goofing up a company-specific acronym (spoken quickly over a cell phone) is not lost on me.
It isn't an easy job, especially given the uhh, you know, sort of rambling, and uhh.. you know, stuttering, umm.. you know, well.. sort of mess that I'm sort of you know, presented with.
