Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rmrfrmrf 2629 days ago
Bloomberg reporters get bonuses for writing stories that affect the market. Seriously.
4 comments

I've heard this so many times and it just seems so ludicrous. How does one even prove that a specific article "affected the market". What degree need an article "affect the market" in order to qualify? How does one measure this? To whom does a reporter submit a "reimbursement for market effect" form?

I mean I guess if I saw some proof of these claims I might change my mind, but at the moment it seems totally naive.

edit: Here's an article that discusses it (for the moment I'll just assume their anonymous sources are correct which is a bit ridiculous to assume coming from a rival news source):

https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...

> There's nothing wrong with a news story moving the market: It means a story is important.

I think this is really the key. Bloomberg's news is financial in nature. Basically any big story will have a market effect. So basically in this instance "moving the market" might just be equivalent to "being a big story". So if it's bad to give bonuses based upon market-moving stories, it's bad to give bonuses on big stories.

Regardless the whole thing side-steps the important question anyway. Are the articles they post actually true? That's the only thing people should concern themselves with.

They don't care about the reason it moves the market.

They just know people will feel compelled to read their publications if they're consistently affecting the market.

Nope, this is not true (from someone I know who's working at Bloomberg).
Market manipulation is illegal and it would be pretty obvious if Bloomberg was participating in this activity
It's not market manipulation to research and publish novel and important business stories.
That's a serious accusation. Do you have evidence to back that up?