Editing Talk:Stockhub
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:* The peers cannot be publicly listed companies. When asked why they cannot be publicly listed companies, no reason was provided. | :* The peers cannot be publicly listed companies. When asked why they cannot be publicly listed companies, no reason was provided. | ||
:* The peers need to offer the same offering (i.e. investment research, ideally free-to-access investment research). | :* The peers need to offer the same offering (i.e. investment research, ideally free-to-access investment research). | ||
:* Potential peers are Finbit (https://finbit.io) and Marketsmith (https://marketsmith.investors.com). I checked Finbit's website and it isn't really an investment research/information provider (it's a financial information gatherer and analyser), so it's not really a competitor of the Stockhub platform. Marketsmith, on the other hand, is an investment information | :* Potential peers are Finbit (https://finbit.io) and Marketsmith (https://marketsmith.investors.com). I checked Finbit's website and it isn't really an investment research/information provider (it's a financial information gatherer and analyser), so it's not really a competitor of the Stockhub platform. Marketsmith, on the other hand, is an investment information provider and, therefore, is a peer of Stockhub. | ||
:* On a side note, the person said that he thinks that even if a company provides free-to-access investment research that is materially better, in terms of quality, than Goldmans Sachs, an institutional investor, such as Blackrock, will not use it, because 1) it's free and 2) the investor probably already has a relationship with Goldmans Sachs. No reason why provided as to why he thinks that, and my view is that his thinking is illogical and, therefore, it's best to ignore his thinking. | :* On a side note, the person said that he thinks that even if a company provides free-to-access investment research that is materially better, in terms of quality, than Goldmans Sachs, an institutional investor, such as Blackrock, will not use it, because 1) it's free and 2) the investor probably already has a relationship with Goldmans Sachs. No reason why provided as to why he thinks that, and my view is that his thinking is illogical and, therefore, it's best to ignore his thinking. | ||