Author Archives: Scalper1

Criteo On Being Facebook ‘Frenemy’ And Why Ad-Blocking Didn’t Stick

Ad tech firm Criteo saw its stock slip last year on fears that it would lose sales after consumer electronics giant Apple opened the door to ad blocking on its iOS devices. After all, Criteo ( CRTO ) embeds browser cookies — tiny text files that let websites recognize users and their preferences when they return to a site — for 52% of the 100 largest retail and travel websites in the U.S. Criteo gets paid for serving ads only if a user clicks on them, and it collects a bigger cut if the user goes on to buy a product from or otherwise engage with that advertiser. But Criteo bucked those concerns after the Apple ( AAPL ) ad-block threat didn’t play out. In mid-February, the Paris-based company posted healthy Q4 earnings that showed rising numbers of clients, a continuing advertising partnership with social media leader Facebook ( FB ), efforts to invent “disruptive products” and plans to beef up its business in China, one of the world’s largest e-shopping markets. On other levels, Criteo still competes with Facebook and is also a rival of ad networks run by major Internet companies, including Alphabet ( GOOGL )-owned Google and Amazon.com ( AMZN ). IBD recently spoke with Criteo CFO Benoit Fouilland about what it’s like being a Facebook “frenemy” and where the company will direct its efforts and resources this year. IBD: Wall Street worried that ad blocking might hurt your company’s revenue, which depends on people seeing ads and then taking action. But impact has been minimal so far. Why is that? Fouilland: There has been considerable talk about ad blocking over the last two months, and there has been some overreaction about that topic. But ad blocking has been here for quite a long time. It’s not a new phenomenon, although Apple made the announcement that iOS 9 would enable the use of ad blockers. But in reality, a maximum of 10% of the users worldwide are using ad blocking, primarily within desktop, although there is some use in mobile. Why do people use ad blocking? It’s a very simple reason — because they can’t stand the very intrusive ads that some industry players are using, in particular the pop-ups or pre-roll video type of ads that are very annoying. But we are not using any of those intrusive formats for one simple reason — our business model is to create engagement. We get paid only if there is engagement with our ads. So we don’t want to annoy anybody with our ads. We want to create an incentive for people by showing them very relevant ads, non-intrusive ads, to give them an incentive to click on the ads. IBD: What is your company’s ad partnership with Facebook? Fouilland: Facebook has been our partner for more than three years. They have a lot of advertising inventories that they wish to monetize. We were an early partner with Facebook when they launched their first initiative, which was the Facebook Exchange, which they created to monetize their ad inventory on desktop. More recently, Facebook has been developing a new solution to monetize its ad inventory within the mobile application, as Facebook is more and more used through mobile. We have been the first partner in that effort, as they publicly disclosed in Q4 2014. IBD: Could Facebook eventually start offering that service themselves and then not need Criteo? Fouilland: They don’t have the predictive capability, which is the core of what we do at Criteo — to predict the behavior of the user based on all the integrations that we have with advertisers. They don’t have all of the breadth of relationships with advertisers, with integration into the shopping data of the advertiser. All of that is what we bring to Facebook. But we are in an industry where very often your friends are sometimes also your enemies. But in this particular case, I think we have a very mutually beneficial partnership, where we bring to them unique capabilities with respect to performance-driven advertising demand. IBD: Can you talk about your company’s innovation efforts? Fouilland: Out of 1,800 people in the company, we’ve got 400 people in research and development. That R&D team is divided between Paris and Palo Alto. In the U.S., we have about 100 people on the West Coast. The core of our technology is machine-learning technology, and those are mathematical algorithms that predict the behavior of users. So the core is research and constant improvement on those algorithms. We have a team of 50 people working on a proof of concept on search marketing. We have a small team working on another concept of what we call offline — how can we make the link between what is happening within your store to what is happening online. That’s a very interesting field. You see more and more people going online and then searching for items in stores and vice versa — people who look at products in the store and then go online to buy them. If you are able to link information about purchase intent in-store or online, it could offer new opportunities. We also have a proof of concept going on in the U.S. and Europe where we capture shopping intent data within stores, thanks to using beacon technology. IBD: In your industry, there are so many companies right now. Do you see consolidation ahead? Fouilland: If you look at performance advertising — and particularly display advertising — it’s an industry where scale matters a lot. Today, if you look at the competitive landscape, most of our direct competitors that have emerged after us have been somehow acquired over the last 18 months. They were not acquired as a consolidation movement in the industry, but more because it became very clear for those direct competitors that they were sub-scale, and they joined broader groups. For example, TellApart has been acquired by Twitter ( TWTR ), and you’ve seen that Tesco-Dunnhumby in the U.K. acquired Big Data tech firm Sociomantic, which was another competitor in Europe. I would not call that a real consolidation, though, because it’s not that the market has consolidated and there are only a few players left now. It’s more that with some players ahead of the game, like ourselves, it was difficult for the new entrants who were sub-scale in this very much “winner-take-all” type of dynamic in our industry. Most of the smallest competitors have been acquired by larger players — not that those smaller competitors are out of the market, but they are now under the umbrella of larger players. IBD: Will Criteo be looking to make any acquisitions this year? Fouilland: We’ve made four acquisitions in the history of the company, so we are active at (surveying) the market for good companies that could bring us complementary technologies. We are considering making acquisitions only if there is a strong rationale from a tech standpoint to ensure that it would help us accelerate our development. IBD: What is your company’s strategy in China? Is Alibaba Group ( BABA ) one of your customers there? Fouilland: We opened an office in Beijing two years ago, and we are in the process of opening another office in Shanghai. We have roughly 25 people on the ground in China. We made a significant investment last year in setting up a data center in Shanghai, the reason being that we ultimately manage a lot of data in order to target users. We are one of the very few international companies with data-center capabilities within mainland China. We now have the foundation for developing domestic demand in China. That’s certainly an area of focus for us in 2016. I can’t make any comment specifically about Alibaba. We have partnerships with multiple large players in China.

3 Best-Ranked California Muni Bond Mutual Funds

Investors interested in a tax-free stable income may consider municipal bond mutual funds. Municipal bonds or “munis” are preferred by investors seeking a steady stream of tax-free income in a volatile market. Though munis come with lower yields than taxable bonds, they fetch better returns for investors in high tax brackets if we consider after-tax returns. California municipal bond mutual funds form one of the main segments in this category. These funds invest in municipal debt obligations of the issuers from the state. These mutual funds are expected to offer the state’s investors a steady income which is exempted from federal income tax and California state income tax. Below we share with you three top-rated California muni bond mutual funds. Each has earned a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank #1 (Strong Buy) and is expected to outperform its peers in the future. Franklin California High Yield Municipal A (MUTF: FCAMX ) seeks a high tax-free income. FCAMX invests a large share of its assets in municipal securities that pay interest, which is exempted from taxes collected by the government and the state of California. The fund may also invest all of its assets in instruments that provide return which is not exempted from federal alternative minimum tax. FCAMX may invest a maximum of 35% of its assets in municipal bonds approved by the U.S. territories including Puerto Rico. The Franklin California High Yield Municipal A fund returned 3.1% in the past three months. John S. Wiley is one of the fund managers of FCAMX since 1993. American Century California High Yield Muni A (MUTF: CAYAX ) invests a large chunk of its assets in municipal securities that are believed to provide interest income free from federal and California income taxes. CAYAX focuses on acquiring California municipal securities that are rated below investment grade. The fund may also invest in securities that are unrated. American Century California High Yield Muni A is a non-diversified fund that returned 3.2% in the past three months. As of December 2015, CAYAX held 371 issues, with 3.61% of its assets invested in Foothill/Eastern Transn Corr Ref Re 6%. Invesco California Tax-Free Income Y (MUTF: CLFDX ) seeks tax-exempted high income. CLFDX invests the major portion of its assets in California municipal securities that provide interest income exempted from federal and California state income taxes. The fund focuses on acquiring securities that are considered investment grade. CLFDX may also invest not more than 20% of its assets in junk bonds. The Invesco California Tax-Free Income Y fund returned 2.8% in past three months. CLFDX has an expense ratio of 0.61% compared with the category average of 0.90%. Original Post

The Best And Worst Of January: Market-Neutral Funds

Market-neutral mutual funds and ETFs posted aggregated loses of 0.14% in January, bringing their one-year totals through January 31 to a near-flat +0.01%. Market-neutral funds, which seek a balance between long and short equity positions in pursuit of returns that are uncorrelated with the broad market, have had an ultra-low beta of 0.13, relative to the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index, for the year ending January 31, but have averaged just 0.04% of alpha over that time. Average volatility of the funds has been low, as the category has an aggregate one-year standard deviation of just 4.89%; but risk-adjusted returns have been unimpressive, with the average fund in the category sporting a one-year Sharpe ratio of -0.16. Top Performers in January The three best-performing market-neutral funds in January were: QuantShares U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta ETF (NYSEARCA: BTAL ) Hussman Strategic Growth Fund Inv (MUTF: HSGFX ) Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap Fund Inst (MUTF: COGIX ) The QuantShares U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta ETF ( BTAL ) was January’s top-performing market-neutral product, posting monthly gains of a whopping 9.48%! For the year ending January 31, the fund was up 6.24%, generating 9.81% of alpha with a beta of 3.96, relative to the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index. That high beta may not be attractive to market-neutral investors despite the bullish returns, and the ETF’s 13.58% one-year standard deviation falls at the top of the rankings for the category. Among the 58 funds in the category with a 1-year track record, BTAL earned a one-year Sharpe ratio – a measure of risk-adjusted performance – of 0.66, outperforming all but 13 funds. The Hussman Strategic Growth Fund Inv ( HSGFX ) was among the top-performing market-neutral mutual funds in January, ranking second only to the above ETF in the category. The fund’s January returns of +5.01% weren’t enough to push it into the black for the year, though, as it was down 6.91% for the 12 months ending January 31. HSGFX produced a -6.25% alpha over the past year, with a beta of 1.53 and volatility of 11.94%. This yielded a one-year Sharpe ratio of -0.55 – not the worst in the category, but certainly worse than the category average. The Cognios Market Neutral Large Cap Fund Inst ( COGIX ) ranked third in January, with returns of +4.29%. For the year ending January 31, the fund’s gains of 10.16% ranked in the top 2% of the Morningstar Market Neutral category. Those gains break down into a 1.66 beta and 10.27% alpha, with a very nice 1.26 Sharpe ratio and 7.88% volatility. The fund, which launched on the last day of 2012, had annualized three-year gains of 7.87%, earning it a five-star rating from Morningstar . Bottom Performers in January The three worst-performing market-neutral funds in January were: Highland HFR Event-Driven Activist ETF (NYSEARCA: DRVN ) Schooner Hedged Alternative Income Fund Inst (MUTF: SHAIX ) Turner Titan Long/Short Fund Inst (MUTF: TSPEX ) An ETF was the top-performing market-neutral fund in January, and an ETF was the worst performer: The Highland HFR Event-Driven Activist ETF ( DRVN ) fell 8.50% for the month, making it the category’s worst by a wide margin. The fund only launched on May 29, 2015, and thus, doesn’t have longer-term performance numbers to analyze. The Schooner Hedged Alternative Income Fund Inst ( SHAIX ) lost 3.91% in January, but still held on to a +1.88% one-year return through January 31. The fund had a beta of -1.58 over the past year and generated an alpha of 1.67%. Its annualized volatility of 6.62% was the lowest of any fund reviewed this month. All of this adds up to a decent Sharpe ratio of 0.30. Finally, the Turner Titan Long/Short Fund Inst (TPSEX) had the third-worst performance of all market-neutral funds in January, with its shares falling 3.24% for the month. Nevertheless, the fund maintained one-year returns of +3.50% (an alpha of 3.36%) through January 31, with a beta of -1.22. TPSEX had annualized volatility of 7.27% through January 31, and a Sharpe ratio of 0.50. Past performance does not necessarily predict future results. Jason Seagraves contributed to this article.