Inside the M&A Press: How Bloomberg Breaks and Shapes Markets

Never publish M&A news without direct confirmation from both sides of the deal.

Bloomberg requires sources who are "directly, intimately involved in the process"; indirect tips from traders, ex-board members, or rival execs are never sufficient.

Why: Only insiders with skin in the game can be trusted; anything else risks market manipulation and legal exposure.

"we have to get both sides sourcing in order to run a story to be comfortable with the fact that it's right"

Use the redhead flag sparingly—only when you want an immediate, algorithmic reaction.

Red stories trigger automated trading; nuanced or preliminary talks are deliberately left un-redheaded to avoid false volatility.

Why: Terminal subscribers trade on milliseconds; an erroneous redhead can cost millions and erode trust.

"we will purposefully not redhead stories where we don't actually want to generate an enormous market reaction"

80% of publication timing is logistical coincidence, not strategic leaks.

Stories drop when reporters finally get the meeting, write the copy, and editors queue it—largely independent of market hours or corporate agendas.

Why: Reduces conspiracy theories and keeps focus on accuracy rather than perceived manipulation.

"I would say 80% of the stories fall into that bucket, and 20% of the stories fall into there's some sort of reason for why the story is going out right now"

Align editorial incentives with the paying customer, not with ad clicks.

Bloomberg’s $25k-per-terminal revenue means reporters are rewarded for being right, not sensational; the 15-minute terminal-first delay monetizes speed.

Why: When the customer is a trader, truth and timeliness are worth more than virality.

"our entire operation is subsidized by the Bloomberg terminal business, which does $9 billion a year in revenue and is not ad supported"

Build relationships long before you need coverage; exclusivity is the only currency.

Founders should court reporters when they’re small; when they’re large enough to matter, the prior relationship secures favorable, exclusive treatment.

Why: At scale, every outlet wants the scoop; early trust determines who gets it.

"ask the reporter what matters to them and then figure out a way that you can give the reporter what matters to them"

First byline signals the primary source; subsequent names are corroboration.

If the Yahoo reporter is first on a Verizon-Yahoo story, the leak came from Yahoo; the Verizon reporter last likely just verified.

Why: Lets sophisticated readers (and PR firms) reverse-engineer who is talking.

"the person with the first byline usually has gotten the critical or maybe the first piece of information to kick off a scoop"

When beaten, decide case-by-case whether to negate or ignore rival reports.

Bloomberg may decline to match thin stories, letting silence signal skepticism; other times it must correct the record to calm markets.

Why: Protects brand credibility and prevents traders from being whipsawed by rumors.

"sometimes the answer to that is yes, and sometimes the answer to that is no, and just let it be"

Chase the biggest dollar value or the biggest name—everything else is filler.

A $15B scoop trumps a $1B deal; Yahoo rumors trump unknown unicorns; sub-$1B deals need celebrity exception.

Why: Terminal subscribers care about market impact; small deals don’t move enough capital to justify scarce reporter time.

"if I can break a $15 billion deal, that's going to be a lot more important to me than breaking a $1 billion deal"