I was listening to some interview on the financial channel and as usual it was something about expectations of the budget. So this expert says that the rally should come after the budget and not before. The anchors are also so predictable. No sooner had this expert said it, they were pouncing on the expert to say which stocks would lead the rally! As though this person is writing the script. Or maybe they thought this expert was advising the FM on his presentation of the budget. Channel presenters are interested in their limited list of questions- which stock, which sector, what levels for support or resistance, FII, interest rates etc. etc. They seldom seem able to go beyond those boundaries. Very few of them anyway.Just doing their jobs, is the way they seem to be looking at it.
In the case that I am describing, the expert was waxing eloquent on what the govt was expected to do and was going on a bit when the anchor suddenly realized that it had been about some 120 seconds since she had gotten in a question about yet another stock’s prospect and interrupted forcefully. Stopped in mid stride of her pontification, this expert then felt that the anchor had to be upstaged. So using words like margins will be “phenomenally and disproportionally impacted” (wow, what a mouthful!) and how some huge EPS would follow, still chose to say that the stock may look expensive! But before we could recover from that incredible backhand volley, the expert quickly interjected that with everything happening now or soon in the future, the stock could also be viewed as cheap! Go figure that one out! I am still reeling.
Did the anchor take that up, saying something like, What the devil did you mean by that? Did you tell me the stock is expensive or is it cheap? You are making no sense at all. Where do you really stand on this? No way. The anchors just went on to their next names on their list. Lets talk some mid caps, they say. And so on it goes.
This is one of the problems of today’s financial television. Channels appear interested to fill in time slots while experts just want to get the matter over and done with. It is just some face time on television, giving them some visibility. Right now there are so many people wanting to show up as experts on channels for the benefit of the exposure that presenters can actually ask the question and probably spend the next 60-120 seconds painting their nails or touching up their make up or whatever else. Ting! The bell shall sound, signalling that the next stock name has to be rolled out. Tell me, expert, how do you see the (input: technical levels/ earnings growth etc) panning out for (substitute name of stock/sector here) the next (day/week (if TA expert)/quarter/six months/year (if FA expert). And back again to what they were doing. Anything, but hearing the answer given!!How can there be any quality interaction if both the presenter and the expert are working on different agendas?
Even thru all this there are some people who still manage to get in a word or two edgewise that are quite meaningful and perhaps of use to the listener. People like Saurabh Mukherjee, Riddham Desai, Nilesh Shah or colourful characters like Shankar Sharma or even Samir Arora come to mind. Problem is, you need to remain tuned in to much nonsense to get something of some value! Much like searching for good stock in the market, what! Clearly, there is a great deal of improvement that can be brought into what passes for financial television today. Question is, who has the balls to go beyond the currently beaten path?