Alex M. is a compliance officer at a mid-sized asset manager. His job includes reviewing communications from portfolio managers and analysts to ensure that anything they say publicly about a company is consistent with what that company actually disclosed. Before earningscalls.dev, checking a statement meant asking someone to find the transcript, read it and summarize it, which took hours per review. We talked about why a transcript search ended up at the center of his compliance work.
Interview recorded on July 3, 2026. Plans and prices mentioned are the ones the interviewee was on at the time; current plans are on the pricing page.
Alex, compliance isn't the first function people associate with earnings call APIs. What's the use case?
Marketing review and communications surveillance. Our portfolio managers and analysts sometimes speak publicly or post on social media. I need to verify that anything they say about a public company is consistent with what that company actually disclosed. Did the PM accurately represent what the CEO said about guidance? Did an analyst's post mischaracterize management's tone?
Before, I'd have to ask someone to find the transcript, read it, and summarize it. That took hours per review. Now I search the transcript directly. I pull the exact segment, compare it to the statement in question, and document my finding. The speaker tagging matters a lot because I need to be certain the quote came from management, not from an analyst's question.
Can you give us a specific example?
A PM gave an interview where he said a company's management "expressed confidence in margin expansion." I searched the most recent transcript for "margin" and pulled the executive segments. The CFO had actually said margins would be "challenged in the near term before improving in the back half." The PM's characterization was defensible but imprecise. I flagged it for coaching rather than enforcement, but without the transcript search I would have had to take the PM's word for it.
Do you use the API or the web interface?
Both. For a quick check, the web search on the site is faster. For documenting my review, I pull the structured JSON through the API and attach it to my case file. The segment ID and metadata give me an auditable record. That's important if a regulator ever asks how I verified something.
How do you handle coverage gaps?
If a company isn't covered, I note that in my review and rely on other sources. The platform covers 17,000+ companies, so it's rare that I strike out entirely. But it happens with very small international issuers. I'd rather have a tool that covers 90% of what I need reliably than one that claims 100% and delivers inconsistent quality.
Cost justification for compliance?
The Pro plan is $24.99. My hourly cost to the firm is orders of magnitude higher than that. If the tool saves me two hours in a month, it's paid for itself. It saves me that in a week. The conversation with finance took about thirty seconds.
What about the AI summaries? Are they useful for compliance?
For triage, yes. When a new call lands and I want a quick sense of whether there's anything I need to review, the summary is helpful. But for actual verification, I always go to the transcript. Summaries can smooth over nuance. A CFO might say "we're comfortable with consensus" in a tone that sounds confident, but the full context might reveal hedging that the summary misses. I need the source.
How has this changed the volume of reviews you can handle?
I can review more communications now. Before, I prioritized by risk. Only the most senior PMs or the most sensitive companies got a thorough check. Now the cost per review is low enough that I can spot-check more broadly. That's a better compliance posture. I'm not out to catch anyone. I want people to know their statements get checked against the source.
Any concerns about relying on a third-party tool for compliance?
The data is public. It's earnings calls. The API just makes it searchable. I'm not putting anything confidential into the tool. I'm querying public transcripts and documenting my findings internally. That's well within any reasonable data governance framework.
What would you tell a peer at another firm?
If you're doing any kind of communications review that involves public company statements, just get it. It costs next to nothing, it saves a lot of time, and the audit trail is better than anything we had from manual review. When I pitched it internally, I called it risk reduction.
Want to try the same workflows? You can search a whole sector, pull speaker-tagged transcripts as JSON or connect Claude through the MCP server. Plans and coverage are on the pricing page, and the full reference is in the API docs.