Since the fees for these data is expensive, why can't companies just subscribe to the database for a short period of time, download the whole database on their system, then do backtesting or resell the data. I mean, since the data is raw, there won't be a copy right problem. For the newest data, you could just get it from the source like sec filings etc. Then why are companies still pay a six-figure fee for annual subscription?
2006-12-31 06:50:26 · 5 answers · asked by Vincent K 2 in Business & Finance ➔ Investing
worth the money to get it all from one (or a small number) of places (and we pay millions).
Besides there is new information everyday. Bonds are issued all the time. And when you are dealing with clients buying a 100 billion dollars wirth of stuff, you want the most up to date info.
With that said, I wish there was not so many errors in Bloomberg data.
Besides if NO ONE paid for it, then the companies will not give it out for free. They charge the people that want realtime data and then they give out the delayed stuff for free. If no one paid for the realtime, then they would lose money and that isn't going to happen
2006-12-31 12:01:45 · answer #1 · answered by NYC_Since_the_90s 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are wrong about copyright and the data are not as raw as you think. Then, companies buy the data to save themselves the cost of collecting them, recording them checking them etc. The sellers of the data also sell charting tools, programs, etc which work with their data.
2006-12-31 08:22:00 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
because they need the data for whatever reason,
Bloomberg allows you find find the price of most, stocks, bonds and other instruments on a given date at a given time. (as opposed to justt he closing value which finance.yahoo.com does)
S&P, provides all sorts of data. many sights that give you stock quotes get it from S&P Compstat service. Compustat also gives you great historical data.
Of course,any finance student will tell you that technical analysis means nothging to the informsation is worthless; many still swear by it.
... and of course finding historical data can help you track your investments especially for tax reasons.
2006-12-31 08:09:07 · answer #3 · answered by Ubiquity 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it makes people feel better if they subscribe. Little to they know they are merely paying for all the advertising crap in the subscriptions.
I rather invest the money I would of spent on the subscription and come out farther ahead!
: )
2006-12-31 10:28:46 · answer #4 · answered by Kitty 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
so they can go to Starbucks ...order a $4 cup of coffee and sit down with the magazine............. and in their eyes.............look important!
2006-12-31 08:57:28 · answer #5 · answered by madmilker 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋