LC

For big campaigns, facebook is lovely to present to c-levels because facebook themselves is able to sell such a good story. Effective? Nobody knows. Facebook tells you they have a great ROI. Facebook tells you they have great engagement. Facebook controls what information they give to advertisers. But the reality is, you have no metrics to compare to other outlets. You don't even know how they calculate their metrics. You can't drop pixels on anything to confirm what they report. How do they measure their ROI? How do they measure engagement? How do they build their audiences? You have no idea. Facebook controls everything in and out of facebook. The third parties who have tried to estimate these metrics report they are lower than what FB reports (albeit it is just an estimation and you could further question conflict of interest). The fact remains that you can't confirm anything facebook reports to you. So when the salesman from facebook tells you facebook is a great marketing tool, if you believe him, then you think Facebook is effective. If you ask him to prove it, he won't. My friend thinks there only two digital spots which are useful: paid google search, and facebook news feed. In my opinion, facebook news feed might be useful for branding. Might be. For conversion or engagement I'm not sold. But it's an easy story to sell.

Was that the reason? I remember the reason they got such a good deal for Salix was because they had 6 months of channel stuffing baked into the price. So they had to wait for that product to work its way thru the pipeline before they could distribute more product.

Say you get a $10m budget from WeddingCo targeting 25-34F in NYC, interested in wedding dresses, who went to an Ivy League college, and have a dog. Well what if there's only $7m worth of that audience available? You're not going to let that money go to waste, so you reach out to Publishers to see who can spend that extra $3m for you. Oh I agree with this. I'm not arguing the spend isn't there. I'm just saying the ROI on facebook sucks. A big reason people are buying facebook ads is exactly the reason you mention: they have to spend that extra 3M. I've got a response to this but I want to confirm the info...last I heard (about a year ago) was that FB's policies were literally the definition of the gray area in data sharing, and they were screwing the agencies and buyers. But need to confirm that is still up-to-date info.

What's the best for them then? I will ask and report back :)

There is enough data out there that is contrary to what you have heard imo. Careful...there are a few big issues with this report. The first 15 pages address the Consumer/Retail advertising industry (aka the VAST majority of the industry) - you will note they only report increased spend on advertising, and increased revenue from facebook/google. What is sorely lacking is any assessment of whether this increased spend is leading to one of two things: increased conversions or increased engagement. This is of course what advertisers measure their success by. The only place the word "engagement" or "conversion" appear, is the B2B section: In the 2016 “State of Marketing” report, Salesforce reported that 83% of high-performing marketers are using CRM to power their digital advertising. Then from the “Salesforce Advertising Index, Q1 2016,” advertisers who had CRM-powered advertising on Facebook had a 47% higher engagement rate than those with just standard targeting Of course, Salesforce sells CRM services to Business customers. And this metric they provide is less meaningful: it does not compare facebook engagement vs. non-facebook engagement. It is just saying, for everyone already dumping ads on facebook, you have more success if you use our CRM services. I may very well be wrong when I claim that facebook advertising is pretty useless, but what you have referenced does not support it.

Interesting: most people in the digital marketing industry that I have spoken to (digital agencies, programmatic buyers, DMPs/DSPs) - they have all said that facebook is pretty much the worst. Poor results on all metrics and they are the worst company to work with.

I wish you guys the best of luck raising $$. I'm still too poor to justify the expense...one day I hope I can contribue meaningfully. You guys are top-of-the-list quality. My wife and I sponsor education where we can, in poor areas of the world and also in poor areas of NYC, but you guys have a great cause. Hopefully some well-off members can realize the great deal you are offering! :D

I always find it funny when communications companies or integrated tech companies (think Cisco, oracle. Etc) have investor relations resources stuck in the 1980s

FYI: Calling the COBF forum excellent and somehow better than "lesser" forums i.e. yahoo, is the exact type of insular/echo chamber structure that the article is warning us about. Food for thought

Netflix has realized that "killer content" is where its at, which is why they are producing their own now. HBO sells the majority of its subs based on 1 show. Distribution is the commodity. Content is the value add

Can't argue with that :)

If you don't know the game, how can you avoid being the mark? ;)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for myself: I remember posting maybe...1-2 years ago about how I was 25% cash. Cue the regular reasons: market highs, potential overvaluation, lack of opportunities, dry powder, etc. Looking back, I think I only held cash out of fear. Maybe that is easy to say with 20/20 hindsight. I don't know. But all 4 of those reasons are bullshit: The first 2 are flat out guesses on the overall level of the economy. Essentially a macro call. So even calling yourself a value investor, ignoring the "macro" etc., I still fall into making a macro call and disguising it to myself. Fear. The second 2 are not real reasons either. Let's say I need cash. Sell something. Let's say I find an incredible opportunity. Sell something. Well, I paid for my decision (in opportunity cost), and am only realizing it a year+ later. Stupido :D

First, from an outcome-oriented analysis: I think only Baupost has been able to actually post "great" return while holding a sizeable chunk of cash relative to the portfolio size. And what Klarman invests in, I have no idea what his thinking is so I can't comment on that. Maybe he's just that damn brilliant. The dude is holding 20% cash and beating the market in weird pharma stocks. But otherwise, I can't think of an investor holding 20+% cash and outperforming. We're no Baupost or Klarman, and we manage a fraction of what they manage, but we've averaged at least 20% cash historically and beat the market from May 2005 when we launched. Bull market, bear market, bull market, sideways market, bull market...we just keep chugging along. And you can check it for yourself in our Annual Reports by simply adding cash at brokers to any T-bill securities we held! Yet, like so many managers, we struggle to find partners and keep the ones we have. Go figure! Cheers! I hereby amend my statement: only Baupost and Corner Market Capital :)

That is seriously f#&*ing hilarious. $10,000 over 2 years to treat toe fungus! Alternatives (Lamisil) cost $150 over the same timeframe! Hmm...

I realize I have an issue with holding cash as "downside protection". This probably jives with racemize's white paper on holding cash. First, from an outcome-oriented analysis: I think only Baupost has been able to actually post "great" return while holding a sizeable chunk of cash relative to the portfolio size. And what Klarman invests in, I have no idea what his thinking is so I can't comment on that. Maybe he's just that damn brilliant. The dude is holding 20% cash and beating the market in weird pharma stocks. But otherwise, I can't think of an investor holding 20+% cash and outperforming. Second, from a process-oriented perspective: First let me refer back to Buffett's partnership letters (maybe too cultish, bear with me). My recollection may be poor, but I think I recall this (correct me if I am wrong, please): Even back in his day, his downside protection was conservative BUSINESSES. Not conservative position sizing. His idea was, "let me be fully invested, but I will invest in "generals" (i.e. my non-arbitrage/control positions) that I think will fall LESS during a downturn". Equal upside compared to the market in general, less downside. I think this gives you options. Over the long-term, the market will rise. Cash sucks in the long-term. So in theory, your portfolio will rise with the market. When a crash hits, your portfolio does not tank as much. On a relative basis, you can then deploy more capital vs. your peers. This was always my understanding of his approach. Look for stable cash flows first (which protect your downside) and let the general rise of the market do the rest. So that is what I understand as a conservative investment approach. Holding onto 20+% cash (or whatever percentage) seems like a really poor decision. The critic could say: I am looking at the past 5-10 year bull market and saying "well of course you want to be fully invested". That may be true. Look forward to the board's thoughts.

7:00 works just fine. Euclid hall would also be great, I haven't been but I've heard good things.

I was no investor, but I followed it. This thread has 240 pages. Half of the participants pretty much said "too complicated for XYZ reason - too hard pile. Next." You can certainly go back and read those to learn some specific lessons. That said, I think the most obvious lesson is this: When fellow boardmembers are going beyond just questioning the acquisitions, the accounting, the long-term strategy...but are also questioning the ethical practices...do not invest. In other words, adhere to the smell test.

I spent a few years doing the deep value/net net/etc...all the stuff the value icons have written about. Didn't motivate me. Buffett gets excited learning the ins and outs of every business he comes across. I get excited playing basketball but I'm no NBA player. I dumbed down my strategy. I expect to make a decent return. I'll never be disgustingly wealthy, but I'll also never spend hours reading 10k footnotes again. That's just me.

I go with unread posts and work my way thru.

The devolution is nearly complete, racemize. Politics, to gender, to race...we just need to hit religion in order to reach rock bottom.

I mean, at some point the chickens come home to roost. Eventually either the accounting winds down or your accountant becomes complicit.

Absolutely correct! I should have removed the "tied up" assets from the valuation...will lower the IV!

Thanks marlin :)

I have a 4-5 year record and it's ~12%/year. I'm pretty much mediocre :D