Talk:Financial data vendor

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Financial date vendor or processor

To Valuelink1: I am trying to use this page to build a 3d model of the data world. This page is solely for data vendors who source directly from source. My understanding is that you buy from or partner with those data vendors and process data for your clients. I have set-up a new page called "Financial Data Processors" which is more properly where I think your company sits. Our industry is quite hidden and I think building a more 3 dimensional model will be more useful than trying to put everyone on one page. Rgnewbury (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, in the vendors list, I see neither FTID nor Sungard Market Data... Bmathis (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Bruno! FTID are now called Interactive Data. I think Sungard is more of a financial data processor than a true data vendor, but feel free to add them if you think it appropriate. Rgnewbury (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Two main types of data and ultimate sources

So I'm not very up-to-speed on this topic. It seems like most data could be broken down into two basic categories: basic financial statement data and basic security transaction data. Is that true? In that case, can we discuss who the leaders are in the respective areas? I'm mainly interested in basic financial statements data. What's the ultimate source for much of this data - I mean, is this being pulled from SEC filings through data scraping, or are people actually transcribing this by hand? I'm interested in this because I so frequently encounter errors in this data. II | (t - c) 01:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about data, that is, mostly prices. Vendors provide also financial static data, such as new securities, with their ISIN and other characteristics, and corporate actions (such as splits, scrip dividends and so on) which are mostly original texts rather than structured data. Though vendors specialising in this area often also a have news service, which indeed may include financial statements, such statements will not be subject to ad-hoc treatment such as text-mining that would help convert text to structured data ready for financial analysis.Bmathis (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the response, although I don't think it quite answered my question. Fundamental data is clearly data, and it is arguably the most important data, since it is the main basis upon which equities and bonds are priced and it is the most error-prone. I don't see why fundamental data would be grouped into "news services", and in fact vendors like Interactive Data and Capital IQ do offer fundamental data. How is that data ultimately gathered? II | (t - c) 19:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because these vendors are in turn fed by stock exchanges, MTF, or even investment banks themselves (as far as OTC trades are concerned). Financial data vendors are aggregators and pay fees to these contributors. Did I answer? Bmathis (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please take a look at the page on SIX Telekurs for a deeper explanation of the type of data. Looking at the websites of that comapny and its competitors will give you an idea of the type of data we are talking about, its sources and the way it is processed. Rgnewbury (talk) 10:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal of List of financial data feeds

I propose that List of financial data feeds be merged into Financial data vendor. I think that the content in the list article is closely related and can easily be explained in this main article. Also, most content in the list article is inappropriate anyway (non-neutral editorial "Purpose", non-notable link spam without sourced evidence of significance, misusage of primary PR sources), so the moveable content would be only 2-3 sentences which could be easily placed in a short section here. GermanJoe (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS to avoid confusion: I already cleaned up some of the mentioned flaws (see article history). GermanJoe (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Honestly, after reading both wikis, they can easily fit together. No need to have the list have its own wikipedia page. Basically, the list just needs a title and put into the right position so it can flow. Pharmerican (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]