3 ms·

UCF has a really nice one hour intro video tutorial[1] on using the Bloomberg Terminal. It really is crazy powerful, but has a high learning curve. It is howeve

UCF has a really nice one hour intro video tutorial[1] on using the Bloomberg Terminal. It really is crazy powerful, but has a high learning curve. It is however the defacto standard for professional traders and finance. I'd often thought would it be feasible to come out with a competing product that is iPad native and offered as SaaS ($99/mo per user) with no special hardware, annual contracts, and high costs. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE8HiHZcgEE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LE8HiHZcgEE

a_imho 8y ago
defacto standard for professional traders and finance What do professional traders do nowadays? My impression was it is already bots talking to bots and/or index funds outperforming/on par with actively managed funds.
- MagnumOpus 8y ago
  True-ish in the small parts of the markets that are extremely liquid (top 500 global stocks, us treasury bond futures). Very untrue for the vast amounts that aren't -- ten thousands of different corporate and government bonds, thousands of leveraged loans, more fancy securities like convertible bonds, credit default swaps or contingent-convertible bank bonds get traded over Bloomberg chatrooms (think Whatsapp groups with lots of additional features but lots of regulatory red tape). In these markets passive funds underperform active funds by vastly more than the fee differential - and that is not coincidental.
- fnord123 8y ago
  bots only work on highly liquid contracts (which makes them more liquid). When you have much less liquid contracts you generally have people making the deals through chat (e.g. InstantBloomberg (IB)) or on the phone.<GO>1<GO>
- FundThrowaway 8y ago
  This whole index funds outperform actively managed funds claim needs a lot more context. I always see adverts from people like Vanguard claiming such things but they are always just talking about raw returns they never take into account risk adjusted returns or the like. Not all returns are the same, you need to think about the risk taken to get those returns, a market neutral actively managed portfolio may return less than a passive fund but it's volatility will be much lower to.
- vostok 8y ago
  1) Index funds have human traders. 2) Human traders will generally trade products that aren't automated or will trade products that are automated in sizes that aren't automated. They will also oversee the automated trading.
danpalmer 8y ago
I think that would have to overcome the hurdle of not looking “serious”. Bloomberg terminals are multi-screen as standard, have a full window management environment, make very heavy use of the keyboard and shortcuts (I believe they are mouse optional, I’ve only ever seen them demoed with just a keyboard). These things are also only ever used on leased lines or very high speed wired connections to reduce latency. The super fast trading is now mostly automated, so I suspect these productivity features are less important, and that a slick touch based UX could be better, but I think it would be tricky to convince people of that.
- gumby 8y ago
  > ...and that a slick touch based UX could be better, but I think it would be tricky to convince people of that. Why would a touch interface be better? The keyboard doesn't move or change state so you can type on it without looking (and your hands don't cover the display). You also don't move your hands so access to commands is extremely fast. Touch is good when you have an infrequently used interface or when the set of data are highly unstructured (e.g. selection in a photo editor). Neither would apply to these cases.
shostack 8y ago
I think this is a case where you may be radically underpricing given the audience.
- nodesocket 8y ago
  A quick Google shows Bloomberg terminals are $20,000 a year for more than two. So perhaps $1,188 a year ($99/mo) is to low, but maybe there are different plans that include premium data and features scaling up from the $99/mo plan? Just spit balling. Also, 1,000 customers which is not that many generates $99,000 a month in revenue, not bad. Finally, at $99/mo you can market to "home-gamers" people who invest from home in a non-professional settings. Much larger pool of potential customers.

a_imho 8y ago

defacto standard for professional traders and finance What do professional traders do nowadays? My impression was it is already bots talking to bots and/or index funds outperforming/on par with actively managed funds.

MagnumOpus 8y ago
True-ish in the small parts of the markets that are extremely liquid (top 500 global stocks, us treasury bond futures). Very untrue for the vast amounts that aren't -- ten thousands of different corporate and government bonds, thousands of leveraged loans, more fancy securities like convertible bonds, credit default swaps or contingent-convertible bank bonds get traded over Bloomberg chatrooms (think Whatsapp groups with lots of additional features but lots of regulatory red tape). In these markets passive funds underperform active funds by vastly more than the fee differential - and that is not coincidental.
fnord123 8y ago
bots only work on highly liquid contracts (which makes them more liquid). When you have much less liquid contracts you generally have people making the deals through chat (e.g. InstantBloomberg (IB)) or on the phone.<GO>1<GO>
FundThrowaway 8y ago
This whole index funds outperform actively managed funds claim needs a lot more context. I always see adverts from people like Vanguard claiming such things but they are always just talking about raw returns they never take into account risk adjusted returns or the like. Not all returns are the same, you need to think about the risk taken to get those returns, a market neutral actively managed portfolio may return less than a passive fund but it's volatility will be much lower to.
vostok 8y ago
1) Index funds have human traders. 2) Human traders will generally trade products that aren't automated or will trade products that are automated in sizes that aren't automated. They will also oversee the automated trading.

danpalmer 8y ago

I think that would have to overcome the hurdle of not looking “serious”. Bloomberg terminals are multi-screen as standard, have a full window management environment, make very heavy use of the keyboard and shortcuts (I believe they are mouse optional, I’ve only ever seen them demoed with just a keyboard). These things are also only ever used on leased lines or very high speed wired connections to reduce latency. The super fast trading is now mostly automated, so I suspect these productivity features are less important, and that a slick touch based UX could be better, but I think it would be tricky to convince people of that.

gumby 8y ago
> ...and that a slick touch based UX could be better, but I think it would be tricky to convince people of that. Why would a touch interface be better? The keyboard doesn't move or change state so you can type on it without looking (and your hands don't cover the display). You also don't move your hands so access to commands is extremely fast. Touch is good when you have an infrequently used interface or when the set of data are highly unstructured (e.g. selection in a photo editor). Neither would apply to these cases.

shostack 8y ago

I think this is a case where you may be radically underpricing given the audience.

nodesocket 8y ago
A quick Google shows Bloomberg terminals are $20,000 a year for more than two. So perhaps $1,188 a year ($99/mo) is to low, but maybe there are different plans that include premium data and features scaling up from the $99/mo plan? Just spit balling. Also, 1,000 customers which is not that many generates $99,000 a month in revenue, not bad. Finally, at $99/mo you can market to "home-gamers" people who invest from home in a non-professional settings. Much larger pool of potential customers.