Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gloomberb

gloom.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 249 posts

Re: Gloomberb

#51

Post by traceroute66 »

u8 wrote: post #8

Yeah... people aren't paying Bloomberg $31,980 per year for a TUI. They're paying for the data source... and I don't think you have Bloomberg's connections.

> They're paying for the data source

Yup.

If you want fixed-income data, Bloomberg is the only shop on the street data-wise.

If you want other financial data, Bloomberg's fixed entry-point pricing tends to make more sense in terms of bang for buck than its competitors modular price sheets.

People saying Bloomberg is just about the chat are simply embarrassing themselves.

Look at the price sheets of Eikon, Factset, CapIQ etc. There is no such thing as a cheap "Bloomberg killer".

Quality data is expensive. So are the leased-lines it arrives at Bloomberg on. So is the data wrangling architecture.

Re: Gloomberb

#52

Post by KomoD »

dpmartinez wrote: post #39
KomoD wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I don't think their website is that bad. The download button doesn't even work properly. Clicking download in the top right gives me a .dmg, the other download button in the hero gives me the .exe, the one in the footer gives me a .dmg Docs give me a 404, blog is empty

> The download button doesn't even work properly. Clicking download in the top right gives me a .dmg, the other download button in the hero gives me the .exe, the one in the footer gives me a .dmg I mean, it works for me? The site is clearly not ready and maybe they didn't expect people to find it, but that doesn't mean the site is bad. It is just a work in progress. I'm not even interested in the site anyway the sof…

> I mean, it works for me?

Doesn't invalidate my experience.

> and maybe they didn't expect people to find it

What do you mean? It's linked on the Github repo.

> but that doesn't mean the site is bad.

I think a site that doesn't work properly is a bad one. That's just my opinion.

Re: Gloomberb

#53

Post by brendoelfrendo »

hmokiguess wrote: post #44
lesam wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really useful to have a chat app that is gatekept behind a 20k/year+ subscription. It's a particularly useful signal if someone is offering you a million+ dollar asset for sale.

I get that, was more curious if you knew how much that is used for signaling and the traffic there. I sort of expected these communities to exist in other sources (like regular SMS / Slack / private back channels etc).

I'm going to copy-paste one of the comments from ryukoposting higher up in the thread because I think it's relevant here:

> 2) Bloomberg's chat is important because, as a hedge fund or investment bank, the chat is how you buy and sell bonds. You agree to the trade in the chat, then tell the back office folks to execute the trade. Direct quote: "I'd wager 90% of the ~400 trillion in annual bond trading value happens over Bloomberg DM"

You may discuss trades via SMS or Slack; maybe you're important enough that you have a broker, and you send them your idea. But the broker at the investment bank is probably handling those trades via Blomberg terminal. That's the network effect: all the bankers are in Bloomberg chat, and it is therefore the easiest place to find who owns an asset and negotiate a trade.

Re: Gloomberb

#54

Post by jpfromlondon »

jimmydddd wrote: post #30
u8 wrote: post #8

Yeah... people aren't paying Bloomberg $31,980 per year for a TUI. They're paying for the data source... and I don't think you have Bloomberg's connections.

Financial companies are cutting down on the amount associates can bill the firm for a $30 dinner, and the time before they can have the firm pay for a $30 car ride home. They definitely wouldn't pay for Bloomberg if it could be easily replaced.

Nobody ever got fired for choosing Bloomberg, even if there was a viable alternative there is no way anyone is pioneering the switch.

Re: Gloomberb

#55

Post by mattnewton »

ryukoposting wrote: post #40
u8 wrote: post #8

Yeah... people aren't paying Bloomberg $31,980 per year for a TUI. They're paying for the data source... and I don't think you have Bloomberg's connections.

Asked a dear friend in the finance industry what he thought about Bloomberg. He's the type of guy who uses these systems daily. Mostly paraphrasing: 1) Bloomberg was lightyears ahead of anything else in the pre-internet days, so there's a lot of UI familiarity. 2) Bloomberg's chat is important because, as a hedge fund or investment bank, the chat is how you buy and sell bonds. You agree to the trade in the chat, then…

TIL Bloomberg terminal is the original iMessage blue bubbles network

Re: Gloomberb

#57

Post by pizzalife »

ryukoposting wrote: post #40
u8 wrote: post #8

Yeah... people aren't paying Bloomberg $31,980 per year for a TUI. They're paying for the data source... and I don't think you have Bloomberg's connections.

Asked a dear friend in the finance industry what he thought about Bloomberg. He's the type of guy who uses these systems daily. Mostly paraphrasing: 1) Bloomberg was lightyears ahead of anything else in the pre-internet days, so there's a lot of UI familiarity. 2) Bloomberg's chat is important because, as a hedge fund or investment bank, the chat is how you buy and sell bonds. You agree to the trade in the chat, then…

It's funny to think some of the world's largest trades are being done in something that resembles a game's tradechat. (WTS bonds)

Re: Gloomberb

#58

Post by steveBK123 »

tikhonj wrote: post #42
ryukoposting wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Asked a dear friend in the finance industry what he thought about Bloomberg. He's the type of guy who uses these systems daily. Mostly paraphrasing: 1) Bloomberg was lightyears ahead of anything else in the pre-internet days, so there's a lot of UI familiarity. 2) Bloomberg's chat is important because, as a hedge fund or investment bank, the chat is how you buy and sell bonds. You agree to the trade in the chat, then…

Bloomberg is big enough that different aspects of the system are going to be absolutely key for substantial subsets of its customers.

Yes its a multi-decade long-tail of thousands and thousands of use cases all used in different combinations by different users.

Re: Gloomberb

#59

Post by Ntrails »

elictronic wrote: post #35
charv wrote: post #13

An aside - do tools like this (or what it's modeling, the Bloomberg Terminal) really offer that much benefit to finance folks?

Here's an article. Basically if your trading stocks no. If you are trading different instruments or want interaction with the money folks (connections) yes. https://financetracked.com/bloomberg-terminal From it: "Bonds and Fixed Income: It provides the best data for interest rates and debt markets. Global Economics: It easily connects data from different countries, such as currency rates and government debt. The Chat…

Depends a bit how you're trading stocks - bbg is still an extremely attractive data provider so I'd not dismiss them out of hand.

Re: Gloomberb

#60

Post by wnmurphy »

devin wrote: post #22
u8 wrote: post #8

Yeah... people aren't paying Bloomberg $31,980 per year for a TUI. They're paying for the data source... and I don't think you have Bloomberg's connections.

To be fair, I don't see anywhere on this page where they try to suggest that this is competitive with a Bloomberg terminal.

Seriously. I see a cool product that someone built and is sharing with the community, and the top comment is basically a criticism that it's not a $31k terminal.
Post reply on HN