Pasting the thread in the page next door.
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/Z5Ya8ZF
I don't know what the heck we are paying $325m a year for. Corporate debt is exploding in China & India - where is the news coverage??
They're not covering what matters to the market. Instead we get irrelevant news plus the reputational & commercial risk!
Cut costs then put them up for sale if anyone wants to buy them anyway. Nobody wanna buy bloated irrelevant 'trophy' as it is
Ive switched to other news providers long ago. I find Reuters SLOW, uninformative, superficial and irrelevant for financial markets.
Agree with most folks here. Reuters equities used to be fast and informative back in the days when Reuters was still a legit newswire. Now it's packaged as silly features which are 1-2 weeks, even months, late and which nobody gives a rat's a– about. The current state of their equities coverage is frankly embarrassing not even befitting mom and pop retail holders. Is anybody going to take responsibility for this ridiculous state of affairs?
Re: non existent local market news, this is what we get when a committee of editors sitting in their ivory towers wherever they may be, dictate news coverage while pretending they know the countries & topics at hand. Result? Laughable market news.
But let's see if that changes when LSE buys Refinitiv. Stock exchange operator as biggest customer of Reuters could only mean one thing.
It’s the same sh– everywhere. Reuters name used to mean exclusive and breaking news. They are lagging behind. They hire the cheapest journalist and lower tiered people. All the good guys left and went to AP and Bloomberg. local market news are non existent. FT and Bloomberg are kicking their old a–. Totally agreed why pay the. $300m a year for 30 yrs
Reuters equities coverage is a goner.
Do they have a problem with news judgment or do they simply not care?
They shouldn't forget that we're their biggest customer though!
Bunch of arrogant fools. Like those onboard the Titanic they won't know they are sinking until they hit the water.
Theres nothing "visionary" about serving your customers. Thats just basic business sense.
@onvs There will be more polarisation where people will get the information they want from specialist providers, and others go to online blogs as you put it.
Those who need top-notch information can and will pay top dollars. A shame that Reuters is not going for this and choosing to compete with online blogs.
You have to ask the question why Reuters is still a cost center for TR after 13 long years, and would simply not survive without the life support from TR and now Refin. Could it be that maybe...going for the blog crowd doesn't pay?? Dumb information is free for a reason.
"who don't understand the basics of finance and who have little to no appreciation for details, which are often what separates making and losing millions."
Yup! This is why old-school news services are losing readers to cable TV and blogs. Lack of knowledge and attention to detail! Those know-it-alls deserve what they get for not listening to a visionary like you.
I read none of Reuters columns and only some of their stories because they are written by people who don't understand the basics of finance and who have little to no appreciation for details, which are often what separates making and losing millions.
They are written by journalists for fellow journalists. I have no use for Reuters and their know it all editors.
If you think the stories are weak wait till you read those short columns of theirs. Absolutely zero value for the market or any serious investor.
@fuzc Too optimistic mate. We're stuck with useless "news".
Whoever agreed to that $325M a year deal better have a game plan. Or am I being too optimistic here?
"Pray tell how do you suggest we fund the $325m a year or, as you said, even double? Might you suggest that we lay off even more people?" - @ZtWAEoO-7ynx
Seriously? They spent that much on their boondoggle "Leadershift" meeting. They piss that much away each year on services that should be k--led and finding excuses to not move to the cloud and save even more millions.
Refinitiv doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a stupidity problem.
I don't understand the seeming distinction between "human" stories and financial stories anyway. Is the financial market not made up of humans? Is the collapse of shadow banks not going to affect the larger economy and therefore humans?
I've had enough of the excuse that Reuters is not covering financial news well because it's focusing on the human stories.
Agree with @mfw, niche players are nibbling on our lunch and soon they'll take it for themselves.
@Darlington Pray tell how do you suggest we fund the $325m a year or, as you said, even double? Might you suggest that we lay off even more people?
The bigger question is why WE should pay for public goods. If it's in the interest of the public, then it should be paid for by the public, not a commercial organization, no? Why are the public not paying for Reuters news?
There's a culture of complacency i think.
Niche providers with a proper business model are zooming ahead while reuters is still figuring out which direction to go
I think it's unfair to call them fake news. They do some important work for human rights etc. But their coverage of financial news is pathetic, simply put, and is a disservice to readers.
Reuters IS fake news. It peddles leftist lies, half-truths, false narratives born of fatally naive wishful thinking and malice. Reuters and its swamp of 'journalists' deserves what it gets.
Nobody is saying don't cover human stories. What people are saying is don't cover ONLY human stories at the expense of the bread & butter that sustains the operations to begin with.
Even stallions need to be fed.
i don't think that anyone is disputing the value of independent stories.
the issue i think is the mismatch between what people pay for and what they're getting.
if i pay for whisky i'd jolly well get whisky, not some medicine that's supposed to be good for the world.
if our clients pay for financial news then they should get financial news, not human stories, no matter how noble. you should not expect people to share or pay for your cause. at the very least, you should not berate them for complaining that they're not getting what they paid for, because that's fact
One persons cynic is another person's realist.
Its great to be riding stallions and fighting bad guys or whatever but you have to be smart about it. What are people paying Eikon for?
Value is obviously relative but 325M is a lot of money at time when people are losing their jobs. Thats equivalent to salaries of hundreds or even thousands of people.
Stallion of truth....
Poetic prose aside, I agree that some human stories have value.
Do not forget however that our terminal clients pay for market news. Ignoring our bread and butter, no matter how noble the cause is, will bite us on the backside.
Refinitiv employees should feel proud to support these shining knights fearlessly riding the stallion of truth through the muddied battlefield of fake news, partisanship and ignorance.
It is a noble cause. Perhaps the noblest. And $325m a year is but a third of what R pays in interest payments on its loans and debt. A third!
If that's the cost to write the human story - our story, your story - with integrity, independence and freedom from bias then it is a price we must pay. For who else will? The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Or to bemoan the cost of doing something.
This site attracts cynics, with good reason, but be wary the man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
If necessary, we should gladly pay double.
politics of making a deal
That's an insane amount of money for an incredibly mediocre product