| Topic Name: |
interview |
| Message Name: |
and your way off aswell |
| Date Posted: |
02/07/2006 |
| In Reply To: |
You raise some interesting points, but you're jumping to some pretty dramatic conclusions from spending 2 hours visiting 1% of Bloomberg.
1) A manager in Data doesn't need to know about XBRL. We have 1700 people in R&D to worry about stuff like that. Their job is to know their market area.
2) Bloomberg probably knows as much as any company in the world about data feeds. We have THOUSANDS of them. Exchange feeds, news feeds, research feeds. Incoming, outgoing. Text, XML, HTML, PDF, TIFF...you name it. We have hundreds of programmers that do nothing but work on setting up and maintaining automated feeds. When the SEC is ready to send XBRL, BBG will be ready to take it day 1.
3) You make it sound as if Bloomberg WANTS to have people typing in numbers. Way off -- too expensive. Only done where absolutely necessary because a) an acceptable feed is not available, or b) the data needs to be NORMALIZED. That's where you really missed the boat. Results are reported very differently from one company to the next. The value added is that the analysts normalize the data and level the playing field for our clients. Having a nice feed may help that to an extent, but it won't completely standardize the way the data is reported.
4) What the SEC is willing and able to do doesn't necessarily apply to the rest of the world. Bloomberg collects data from every major market, and most minor ones. We have to carefully decide where to put our resources. Having improved feeds in the more advanced countries frees up analysts to work on countries that won't have anything resembling XBRL anytime soon. |
| Message: |
you make it sound glamorous
its not , bloomberg is good for certain careers sales and programming and thats it.
|
|
