Are we in a digital advertisement bubble?

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

It’s true, but it can be the case that if you don’t stand in your own line handing out your own coupons, your competitors will.

ROI is fickle in marketing. Very few customers will ever cite a single source as their reason for purchase. You have to be everywhere they might, even nudging them close to point of sale.


Online advertising was also the previous dot com bubble as well.

If you create a marketing department it will always eventually do that. Because the marketing department is good at marketing itself.


Full disclosure, I work in marketing and run ads for a Fortune 500.

I went into this line of work a cynical bastard. Hell, I still am. But I assumed, like me, no one responded to ads. So I test drove some social ad platforms and got results. People went to my web pages, people bought shit as a result of my ads. I thought, maybe this is a mistake, maybe these are bots or people paid to do this. So I worked with my web team to create metrics to test how much people are reading on my pages, to look at the path people take from my ad to making a purchase. It all adds up — *advertising is effective.*


You have to know what you’re doing. You need to know your target audience and what they respond to in copy, visuals, and offers. You need a great graphic designer, a content pipeline, integration across business units, people willing to experiment with new things. ***Does a lot of the money I spend get wasted? Fuck yeah!*** Absolutely! 90% of people on Facebook don’t click my shit. But enough of it produces tangible enough results that it is worth my spending even more budget if I could get my hands on it.

So anyway, there’s my two cents.


I specifically don’t purchase the advertised items on amazon because I prefer to purchase based on reviews and personal taste than an advertisement.

(Fake reviews another story…)


This is kind of dumb. The discrepancy between the amount of clicks you get being the first result vs even the third result is staggering. To assume that consumers would just magically get to your website is misguided and naive. The other benefit of online advertising is you can directly measure results in a way that other mediums don’t provide.


Anyone know how to get portfolio exposure to the Dutch flower industry?

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

So you want to go big on Dutch tulips ….. welcome to 1637.


shes not gonna die bro shes immortal fool


Buy a flower shop in London.


I would wait for a few hospitilisations before I went flower shopping, she’s prob got another decade minimum. She’s rich remember they’ll just strap some organs from the peasant children of her colonies ton keep her going


There is none, I am Dutch and there is no company on the stock market directly related to flowers. It is all private held.


Could asset concentration be the reason why we have lower interest rates and low inflation during a time of economic expansion, rising markets?

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Wealth concentration is largely generational when you take it at-large across the economy. Millenials are entering the workforce or just entering prime years -> debt from education, big ticket purchases like cars and homes. GenX is in their prime productive years but a relatively small generation. Boomers are either in retirement or about to enter retirement, with significant assets, investments, and paid down debts. This is such a large generation that it has created a “savings glut”. There are more old people with money than young people who need money. This money hunts down yield and drives interest rates lower. Cost of capital being so cheap and an aging population helps drive surpluses in supply and tamp down on inflation.

In regards to the Fed lowering interest rates, there actually were/are significant signs of distress. Even without the trade war the business cycle was aging. But you have business investment coming in weak which is a good indicator of a possible slowdown. Manufacturing entered a recession and may have turned the corner recently but it’s hard to know for sure yet. The trade uncertainty not only in the US but in the UK is making it difficult for businesses to make long term plans. Distresses like this take time to actually work themselves down to the economy and considering the weak inflation, the Fed has correctly weighed the risk of a recession as more important than the risk of inflation. I don’t think they did enough soon enough, but at least they identified the problem before shit hit the fan. At this point I do think the Fed Funds Rate is at a good point to sit and hold for about 6 months.

On another note, the domestic boom in fracked oil and natural gas has led to unprecedented stability and cheap energy prices. Energy finds its way into just about every product and the cheaper it is the lower inflation will be.


Companies are also using all their record piles of cash to make record buybacks on their stock instead of hiring anyone.


> . Lets say the Fed/Govt minted a $1 trillion bill and gave it to an individual citizen, with no strings attached. How would this impact the economy? I would imagine that we would see what we see today. Most of that trillion would end up in bonds and equities, driving down interest rates, and driving the S&P higher… with little impact on inflation nationwide.

That’s what would happen if they gave it to rich citizens. Rich people have a low marginal propensity to consume. Money given to them mostly returns to the financial system and has little impact on inflation. Poor people on the other hand have unmet needs for actual stuff. They have a very high propensity to consume. The money would mostly leave the financial system rather quickly and turn into purchases of goods and services. Moreover X’s spending is Y’s income. So you get a multiplier on spending which is substantially higher than 1 (I think for the USA as a whole 1.52 but likely for the poor and closer to 1.8).

So if we have the entire trillion to the poor it would boost GDP by say $1.6 trillion or so (they do save some). That’s about 8.25% gdp growth. That’s enough to create an employment surge likely of about 4.1-5.25%. We would see a sharp rise in workforce participation and a drop in the unemployment rate. But that number is probably too high regardless, there isn’t that much slack. A rise that large couldn’t be met. Just giving a $1t to poor people would have been smarter in 2009 when there was that much slack, something like $300b makes a lot more sense now.

So in today’s economy we would see tremendous competition for resources and likely you would some inflation particularly in wages. That drives investment up as companies need to boost productivity and we have a healthy supply constrained economy again.

In short even a slight deconcentration of wealth would create strong growth in the current situation. The economy is off balance. It wouldn’t take much at all to bring it into balance.


>Compare that to $1 trillion being created by the fed and issued via a one time ~$5000 stimulus check for every person in America. I have a feeling this would put major pressure on inflation, and interest rates would go up.

The economist Milton Friedman conducted a similar thought experiment (in the 1960s I think) and wrote a paper on it, he concluded based on his assumptions (pretty similar to yours actually) that it would not be inflationary and that it would be economically stimulative.


Low inflation is a direct result of the many tailwinds Americans faced this past year. One is the domestic control the US government has over energy prices. Never before had the US been a major exporter of energy. The second was the tariff and Phase 1 talk, and the third had been a rising dollar with the only 1st world economy on firm footing. Going forward I can see inflation flying past 2%. The talking heads will say a lower dollar will increase EPS, but in fact it will just increase all the input costs that will push prices up, and it’ll be at least a year before other economies start to show growth on valuation models. Energy prices will stay muted, maybe food as well cause Trump can control those, but the discretionary goods should rise.


I tuned into Vanguard’s webcast last night about the global economic outlook in 2020 and beyond

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

> Expect reduced returns, especially in the US Markets for years to come

This has been being predicted for years, by Vanguard and others, and has yet to come true. I’m not saying this isn’t the time when they’re not wrong … but take it with a grain of salt.


100% S&P in the 401k, always will be, 100% High Yield Savings short term. Ready for anything baby


Watched a bit last night. I still don’t see the use for international stocks. Every large cap US company operates globally. Any shock to the US will ripple around the world.

All you get are higher fees and less returns for the illusion of diversification.


Can’t handle the stress anymore. I am retiring in 10 years and I’ve been out of work most of this year and I can’t take a chance on losing a big chunk of my retirement. After some retirement modeling it with a CFP, i pulled out enough from an age based and put it into a govt bond fund. the plan is to pay off my mortgage, an auto loan and two student loans and some taxes. It was less than half of my retirement savings. In january I am paying off everything and going to $0 debt. no credit cards, no nothing, no debt. and no plans to buy any more real estate, cars, or anything else. Ill take my 24k tax deduction each year and be happy.


I love this graphic. Saw it on some random YouTube video. It’s one of the best visual representations of the pros/cons of an “aggressive” versus “safe” asset allocation.


Stock futures turn negative after Trump says a report on trade deal is ‘completely wrong’

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Lingling Wei reported the story for WSJ. She’s possibly the best China reporter any US news outlet has out there. I doubt she needs to find a ‘better leaker.’

China has a 10am ET conference to talk about trade. What a world we live in where we have to wait for the Chinese government to tell us what’s actually real and what’s not.


Imagine actually being dumb enough to believe anything Trump says about the trade deal


Imagine what might happen if a businessman with a long history of shady deals was able to move the market with a tweet.


At this rate Trump’s behaviour around the trade deal feels like a strange form of extremely-public market manipulation :z


Lmao like fucking clockwork


Trump Signs Off U.S.-China Trade Deal to Avert December Tariffs

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

> The terms have been agreed but the legal text has not yet been finalized, the people said

I bet by Monday Trump will declare that there is “no deal in sight” for China and the tariffs will kick in for January.


People losing it over a deal that simply delays tariffs for a bit more. Sure next week he will tweet about how he is doubling the tariffs now


Phase 1 done. How many phases are left?


The trade war has been a complete waste of time and resources if that’s all it takes for trump to bend over.


Trump, “I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further.”


Dow jumps 260 points, hits record on Trump tweet saying US is ‘very close’ to China deal

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

tomorrow: china is bad and there will be no deal ever! Tariffs to the moon on every country!


Haven’t heard this before.. /s


I love the smell of .74% in the morning. Retirement time!


Meanwhile apparently Navarro is circulating a memo saying the WH should remove all business uncertainty (hey, good idea!) by announcing “no deal until after the elections” (oh no) and riding the tariffs to victory (hubba what?).

This trade policy is like a headless chicken. Just going wherever.


He keeps saying this. The market goes up. And then it turns out to be BS and the market goes down.

Smacks of market manipulation to me.


So when should you get out of a profitable investment?

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

at the peak!


Depends on the investment.

My shares of MSFT? No time soon

If i Yolo on an option, a 20% gain is good.


Don’t forget to factor in your total bank roll and risk. Think of the game show deal or no deal. Imagine you could take the 200k suitcase now or flip a coin for 500k or nothing. Game theory says flipping the coin for the 500k suitcase is the best option but for most people(who are basically broke) the guaranteed 200k is so lifechanging and they should take it considering they will never get such an opportunity again.


Most of Buffett’s key holdings also pay solid dividends. He is a value investor, but also gets large dividend returns. If you pick solid, not going anywhere, dividend paying stocks. That is literally your plan. Hold, and use the dividend to buy more solid blue chip stock and so on. Time compounds your gains.


From personal experiance, I found that occasionally trimming winning positions is best. If it continues to go up, the worst that happens is you miss out on proffit (which in all honesty isn’t that bad.) Should your position go down but you trimmed prior, you now have addtional funds to employ and can DCA back in to purchase the dip.


Why was Facebook’s Libra killed off? A blockchain firm advised by Nobel laureate Myron Scholes just launched a rival to Facebook’s Libra

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Marky mark tried to put his hand in uncle sam’s cookie jar.


Keep in mind that Myron Scholes was one of the geniuses behind LTCM. Anything with his name on it will probably attract a fair amount of scrutiny.


When was libra killed off?


It’s not killed off, they have a test net up which has been continuously updated and work on it


This is an ad for the company.


S&P 500 Buybacks Now Outpace All R&D Spending in the US

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

Perhaps this will shock some people, but there comes a point where your R+D guys are appropriately funded and there is *no good business reason* to spend more in that area.

Stock buybacks are just a tax efficient method for corps to return money to shareholders, i.e. the business owners.


I don’t really understand why people get so irrationally afraid of returning capital to shareholders. This sub loves dividends but for some reason loses all sense of financial knowledge when it comes to buybacks.

What if the headline was “total dividends now eclipse R&D spending”. You’d hopefully rightly conclude that the two had nothing to do with each other and this was a stupid headline.


I don’t have a problem with buybacks. Done correctly, they are an excellent way for the leadership of a company to give value back to the shareholders. However, this implies that we trust the leadership of the company to be an able steward of our and their capital. I think leadership should approach buybacks the same way that an investor would approach buying their company’s stock; by comparing the price of the stock to the value. The leadership should have a distinct advantage in understanding if their company is undervalued or not. The situation where the leadership uses buybacks when the stock’s price is below or even at it’s value is totally fine in my opinion.

My problem with the huge increase in recent buybacks is that total market indicators favored by prominent value investors like Warren Buffett, like the Shiller P/E, show that the current market is very overvalued. I’m sure there are some companies being bought back that are undervalued but the majority of them are overvalued.

This means that those companies are essentially burning cash equal to the difference between the price and value for every share they buy back instead of investing that cash, possibly at a later time, in a way that is beneficial for the shareholders.

This problem is compounded when you look at how corporate debt has skyrocketed recently as well. Interest rates are very low but when so many companies are borrowing large amounts of debt that will take years to pay back and immediately burning it on overvalued buybacks instead of profitable investments, that is cause for concern and shows leadership that is more interested in meeting an inflated short term goal than the long term health of their company and shareholders.

The problem isn’t that there is a large amount of buybacks. If this same situation had taken place after the crash a decade ago, it would, on average, have been an amazing consolidation of value. The problem is the mass mishandling of shareholders’ money by leveraging large amounts of debt with the intention of making their company look better in the short term.


This should be great in the short term, and shitty in the long term. Which is just what the market wants, right?


Has this ever happened historically?