<<I like it on that Taking Stock thing that Liz C. does, when they put up the guys' track record of what they were touting the last time they were on. >>
I suspect that CNBC ruffled a few feathers when they began this "prior picks" reporting. That said, I also suspect though that most viewers who really want to see it, pay very little attention to it when it actually comes on. As with most things though, after you see it for a while, one tends to view and justify it based on other sentiments (i.e., what you want to see) or it is meaningless unless you happened to invest in one of those stocks about the time it was mentioned (and if you invested solely based on the on-air recommendation, you deserve what you get). If the prior picks are up, I suspect there are some folks who will just credit it to luck. If the prior picks are down, there will be some folks who will credit it only to extraneous factors as well.
There was a guy on the other day whose three prior picks were all down -- one significantly (over 50%) as I recall. In my view, the mere fact that he was willing to come back on says something, if for no other reason than it is rare. Of course, if someone likes a stock at $80, one would expect them to love it at $30. It may have happened, but I do not recall anyone yet saying "well, sure I picked it, but I just blew it."
CNBC should be commended for including the prior picks. Regardless of how it is viewed on any particular occasion, it is responsible reporting.
Probably the most annoying thing at CNBC (IMO) is guests being cut off (sometimes not so tactfully) in what appears to be the middle of an interview. If someone is worth having on in the first place, are they not worth hearing from in a meaningful way? If not, why bother? I suspect that most viewers would be very happy with 20% fewer guests and 20% more substance with each guest. If a hard commercial break has to happen, the guest should be kept around for at least a "wrap-up" after the break.
One final (long) comment: it is very easy for us to second guess any and every interview. If the CNBC folks were able to always think of every "killer" or "ultimate" question that always cut right to the heart of the only very important issue (which, of course, is always a moving target based on one's -- or the millions -- perspective), I suspect that they would have little need or desire to still be working. Even though they have a celebrity status because of their on-air appearance, that status does not create perfection nor should it be expected to do so. There is no doubt in my mind they do as best as they can at the moment given the constraints with which they are faced. They are generally intelligent individuals in a fast paced, high pressure, constantly changing environment over which they sometimes have little, if any, control. Is it perfect? No. Will or can it ever be? No. Can someone always think of something more or better? Always. Does that somehow make the interview or reporting inferior? Absolutely not. Will they never make mistakes or never regret having said or not said some pearl of wisdom or regret having asked or not asked a certain question? No, and I would be suspect if they or anyone else claimed otherwise. Hindsight is always 20-20 and there are always questions that one thinks of afterwards or that someone else thinks of that you do not that you wish you had asked or thought of.
For those that have not done so (and even for those that have), try listening to a company's conference call and then imagine yourself being the person that then had to ask all of the bright, intelligent questions -- or better yet being the only person to ask such questions. I suspect that after listening to the questions being asked, there will never be an occasion when you do not think "great question, wish I had thought of it" or even if you omit the "great question" portion, an occasion when someone asks a good, decent, probing question that you would not have asked if you had been responsible for asking all of the questions. CNBC reporters are no different, IMO, and should not be expected to be.
Sometimes it is better to turn the power down on the microscope lest or before it be aimed in your direction.
Troy |
