<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I agree 100%.. The main benefits that I derive from it is the vast
amount of data that's available, in one consistent format. IMO, it's
worth the $1900 if I can access all of the data that I need, from one
place in one format as opposed to spending time monkeying around with
different vendors in terms of billing, data formats, etc. For example,
I can access a variety of sources (mostly Fixed Income): BoA, Barclays,
Jefferies, JPM, BGN (Composite) etc. and have it all in one data
format. So, if I want to get bid and ask prices for a particular
instrument quoted from a specific trading desk, it's a matter of having
access to the screen. The formats are mostly the same...<br>
<br>
That's just my opinion, it's not one size fits all for everyone. <br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Cedrick<br>
<br>
gug wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:23700148.post@talk.nabble.com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Spencer,
That's a hard question to answer - it is pretty open-ended. It depends what
you are trying to get out of it, and there are big differences between the
different professional packages. Bloomberg (and other professional
platforms) generally gives you either more depth of data, or more ability to
manipulate data, or more consistently organised data.
If you just want historical closes, Yahoo will give you reasonable data: not
perfect, but even a professional data package will have some data integrity
issues. If you want to be able to manipulate that data within the package
(e.g. graph a spread between two instruments) then clearly Yahoo cannot do
that.
If you want to see intraday charts, but do nothing else, Yahoo will enable
you to see the chart, but not get the data in a table form, or manipulate.
A professional package will often (depending on which one) allow you to do
that.
And at the low end of the professional packages, you may well find that
Yahoo (and the internet in general) is at least as good. I have seen one
paid but cheap package that was inferior to Yahoo in all but one or two
respects.
Guy
spencerg wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi, Guy:
Thanks very much. That's helpful.
The Wikipedia article on the "Bloomberg Terminal"
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomberg_Terminal</a>) helped me understand
why people pay for that service, but I still have another question:
Do you get the same data from Bloomberg as, e.g., Yahoo? Or does
Bloomberg generally provide better quality or more comprehensive data?
Thanks again.
Spencer Graves
gug wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Data providers (Bloomberg, Reuters, etc - even Yahoo) generally give you
historical and delayed (e.g. 15 minutes late) data as part of your basic
package. However if you want real-time prices, you have to pay for them.
Those fees go to the exchange - they are exchange by exchange.
Guy
spencerg wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi, Cedrick:
Thanks for the info.
What do you mean by "exchanges and other feeds"?
Spencer Graves
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>