MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => iStockPhoto.com => Topic started by: hatman12 on February 26, 2015, 00:25
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-run-tight-on-cash-as-profit-drops (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-run-tight-on-cash-as-profit-drops)
Doesn't look good for Getty. Bonds have declined to junk status. Istock declining. Cash running out.
-
They take 80% and they still manage to get in financial troubles what do you learn on these business schools?
-
Symptomatic of many of the companies I've worked for. Too big for their boots and sitting back on the assumption that brand loyalty and marketing bonhomie is going to paper over the cracks in their service and value. Also, pursuing the diminishing returns of short-term profitability by squeezing operational costs, bullying their suppliers and failing to capitalize on new initiatives eg. Editorial and Mobilestock etc, etc....
To be fair they (IS) are not on their own in this....like a lot of successful, fast-growth start ups they leave behind the people who say "Let's do this" and replace them with people who say "Wait a second....how much is this gonna cost?"
-
Their real problem is that they borrowed against tomorrow to live high on the hog today, with all those fabulous bonuses and profits from ramped valuations of the company, and now repaying the loans is problematic.
Still, the bonuses are safely banked, aren't they? So the management is fine.
It's SOOOOO like Greece.
-
Their real problem is that they borrowed against tomorrow to live high on the hog today, with all those fabulous bonuses and profits from ramped valuations of the company, and now repaying the loans is problematic.
Still, the bonuses are safely banked, aren't they? So the management is fine.
It's SOOOOO like Greece.
Its so not like Greece ;)
-
No surprise that istock is declining. How many of us have removed large chunks of our portfolios or left? They made so many changes and the site never seems to work as well as their rivals. Its inevitable that buyers will end up looking elsewhere and then there's no reason to come back.
Going to be interesting to see how this pans out.
-
now repaying the loans is problematic
IPO will pay off the debt. No ?
-
for a monopolist like Getty a loss of 10-20% is no big deal, but it's certainly a sign of the times and of their bad management.
in its defence it must be said that microstock is finally killing the whole industry once and for all so everything we've been discussing here since many years ago is finally becoming reality.
there will be always a stock industry and demand for stock images, just not as well paid and profitable as before ...
as far as we're concerned there's nothing to be happy if Getty goes down the drain .. their gigantic archive will be sold for a pittance to SS or even to Adobe and then all those expensive images will become cheap subs !
once there's no Getty around who's going to pay decent fees to us ? nobody, that's who.
and it's not just Getty but also upper-class agencies like Magnum or VII ... while here we rant and rave about oversupply the reality across the editorial/publishing industry is there's just no F ing demand as in the past and many of the old rich buyers are now bankrupt or in dire straits ... even some top war photographers have barely a pot to pis-s in and are now doing workshops in order to survive.
as i see it, the entire creative world is going to crumble due to the Internet and Digital and Globalization.
it will take 10-15 more years to create a new balance and a "new order" but the golden days will never ever come back.
-
and it's not just Getty but also upper-class agencies like Magnum or VII
Remember that Magnum is also a valuable legacy collection - owned by the members or their heirs. It runs more like a family business. And it is a completely different business anyhow - being primarily about photographs. The big stock companies, by contrast, are essentially finance vehicles. Their primary business is finance.
even some top war photographers have barely a pot to pis-s in and are now doing workshops in order to survive.
Established photographers have always often also been involved in running classes and workshops + lecture circuit. Certainly since the early 70s anyhow.
-
as i see it, the entire creative world is going to crumble due to the Internet and Digital and Globalization.
it will take 10-15 more years to create a new balance and a "new order" but the golden days will never ever come back.
You mean US and UK creative world, not the entire creative world? Because, for some of us the golden days have just started, thanks to globalization.
-
as i see it, the entire creative world is going to crumble due to the Internet and Digital and Globalization.
it will take 10-15 more years to create a new balance and a "new order" but the golden days will never ever come back.
You mean US and UK creative world, not the entire creative world? Because, for some of us the golden days have just started, thanks to globalization.
I would really like to know who and where is living golden days at current time when middle class is significantly vanishing all around the globe...thanks to globalization.
The rich are getting richer and all the rest are getting poorer
-
I don't look at my iStock stats much anymore, it's kind of just on autopilot at this point. So yesterday when my payout came in I remember thinking, "That's all??" Then in looking at my stats my earnings there are way down. Back to the dismal levels of a couple of years ago.
I think the change in credit pricing was a bad move. I don't see how buyers could possibly receive it positively. All they see is the cost of a credit going up exponentially, even if it really does end up working out pretty much the same as before.
In the end it's all the same story with iStock, and they still have the same problems in front of them. Unless they do something drastic to win back customers and instill confidence in contributors, it will just be more of this same bad news for years to come.
They can save it, but I don't think they will. Doing so would require too many rich people to be a little less rich for a while, and that will never happen up there at Getty HQ.
-
and it's not just Getty but also upper-class agencies like Magnum or VII
Remember that Magnum is also a valuable legacy collection - owned by the members or their heirs. It runs more like a family business. And it is a completely different business anyhow - being primarily about photographs. The big stock companies, by contrast, are essentially finance vehicles. Their primary business is finance.
even some top war photographers have barely a pot to pis-s in and are now doing workshops in order to survive.
Established photographers have always often also been involved in running classes and workshops + lecture circuit. Certainly since the early 70s anyhow.
Magnum will never die but if the trend keeps going on like this they will just turn into an art gallery or a museum sooner or later.
there's nothing wrong in doing workshops but i'm not sure it's a thing for everybody, even such a top photographer like Steve McCurry (Magnum) had to give up and admitted he's not cut for teaching.
-
You mean US and UK creative world, not the entire creative world? Because, for some of us the golden days have just started, thanks to globalization.
i live in one of the cheapest countries in the world and i can tell you things are changing FAST here since the last 3-4 yrs and since the euro losing 20-25% in the recent months, so bad that i'm leaving soon and going in eastern europe where the living costs are almost on par for many things ... places like Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, beautiful places, great food, decent services and infrastructure (certainly better than where i am now).
and if you think the golden days will last forever, good luck, just look at mainland china where now the salaries in the big cities are 500-1000$ for white collar jobs ...
cheap countries with cheap production costs ? you mean seriously cheap as chips ? at this point i only see India and Nepal ... the rest of Asia has booming inflation pretty much everywhere, give it 3-5 yrs at most, the whole place is going to change radically for the worse.
-
They can save it, but I don't think they will. Doing so would require too many rich people to be a little less rich for a while, and that will never happen up there at Getty HQ.
and now the big question is : WHO will buy Getty for a pittance ? Adobe ? SS ? who else ?
-
Do they really need Getty??
They already have working agencies with good communities. They can just expand on what they have?
Probably the editorial section could be interesting for a large newsagency, and creative stock macro for a specialist. But who will take their micro(midstock) section?
But maybe they can find another buyer who will "invest" in the Getty myth, who knows. It is wallstreet,anything crazy is possible, they work totally outside of normal business logic.
Maybe they will make Yuri the new CEO...at least he understands what customers really want.
-
Could they go bankrupt and then not pay their contributors? Bigger companies have.
-
Could they go bankrupt and then not pay their contributors? Bigger companies have.
Yes, but the amount of money that I would lose would be less that what a soup & sandwich cost at my local cafe :-\
-
- The big stock companies, by contrast, are essentially finance vehicles. Their primary business is finance. -
How very true. And how it shows!
-
You mean US and UK creative world, not the entire creative world? Because, for some of us the golden days have just started, thanks to globalization.
i live in one of the cheapest countries in the world and i can tell you things are changing FAST here since the last 3-4 yrs and since the euro losing 20-25% in the recent months, so bad that i'm leaving soon and going in eastern europe where the living costs are almost on par for many things ... places like Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary, Slovakia, beautiful places, great food, decent services and infrastructure (certainly better than where i am now).
and if you think the golden days will last forever, good luck, just look at mainland china where now the salaries in the big cities are 500-1000$ for white collar jobs ...
cheap countries with cheap production costs ? you mean seriously cheap as chips ? at this point i only see India and Nepal ... the rest of Asia has booming inflation pretty much everywhere, give it 3-5 yrs at most, the whole place is going to change radically for the worse.
Hobostocker, all good points here, I agree.
I just wanted to share with all of you here that I'm happy because I'm doing well in microstock world. I know that it won't last forever and I know that for many photographers this microstock thing is just not working. I helped many fellow photographers get into this business and most of them have already given up.
If you ever decide to move to Serbia drop me a PM, I would be happy to show you around and help you.
-
Maybe they will make Yuri the new CEO...at least he understands what customers really want.
Wasn't he supposed to be project-managing the changes which started in September?
-
Could they go bankrupt and then not pay their contributors? Bigger companies have.
I'm more worried about that happens to our 'assets' in that scenario, as they have strategically renamed them.
Traditionally, that was why I went for a weekly payout. That's hardly relevant (to me) now.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/getty-images-outlook-blurs-as-photo-rivalry-triggers-price-war (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/getty-images-outlook-blurs-as-photo-rivalry-triggers-price-war)
Another story about Getty's difficulties. This glosses over how much of this has been an own goal on Getty's part, IMO. Certainly Shutterstock deserves some credit (and no one would even be mentioning Fotolia if Adobe hadn't purchased them), but they have benefitted hugely from Getty's eff-ups and crappy treatment of contributors across their various segments.
-
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/getty-images-outlook-blurs-as-photo-rivalry-triggers-price-war[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/getty-images-outlook-blurs-as-photo-rivalry-triggers-price-war[/url])
Another story about Getty's difficulties. This glosses over how much of this has been an own goal on Getty's part, IMO. Certainly Shutterstock deserves some credit (and no one would even be mentioning Fotolia if Adobe hadn't purchased them), but they have benefitted hugely from Getty's eff-ups and crappy treatment of contributors across their various segments.
+1
but going back to the topic of this thread, i am confused because
of the words (istock poor performance)...
didn't getty buy istock to kill it since it was more or less how it appeared to me
that is what happened. getty got what they wanted (to kill istock)
and they did.
and now they kill themselves like the shark kill and got killed.
-
now repaying the loans is problematic
IPO will pay off the debt. No ?
No, not if they can't convince anyone to spend the money on the stock. Would you invest heavily in a company who can't pay the bills or despite millions in sales monthly has no spare cash?
-
I think this situation looks bad for Getty. The bond market is suggesting insolvency, possibly bankruptcy in the years ahead. The 7% bonds trade at 63c giving an interest yield of 11.3%. That's junk status and implies 'very high risk of losing your money'.
It's okay at the moment. But crunch the numbers. There's $2.6 billion of debt, all of which needs refinancing during the next five years. If all of that has to be refinanced at junk levels of 11.3%, that would produce an annual interest payments liability of $293 million. Getty's 4th quarter EBITDA was $67 million. That annualises at $268 million. Potential debt liability is greater than annualised EBITDA. And remember what KK said - 50% of sales are made in the last quarter of the year, so that annualised revenue figure might be optimistic.
They have to sell some assets to reduce debt at some point in the next couple of years. OR, they will have to renegotiate current debt. OR default. If they cannot renegotiate they might opt for Chapter 11 to protect themselves from creditors while they restructure the business.
None of this will happen now, but the bond market is pricing in the likelihood of it happening in the years ahead. It seems to me that the bonds are massively overpriced even at 63c.
As suppliers we can only hope that they manage to reduce the debt and get the business back onto a growth track. I suspect that in order to achieve that, the current owners will ask the CEO to fall on his sword, and they'll bring in a turnaround or restructuring specialist.
-
They have to sell some assets to reduce debt at some point in the next couple of years.
Jim Pickerell says that there is a rumour that they may sell editorial.
-
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/getty-images-outlook-blurs-as-photo-rivalry-triggers-price-war[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/getty-images-outlook-blurs-as-photo-rivalry-triggers-price-war[/url])
Another story about Getty's difficulties. This glosses over how much of this has been an own goal on Getty's part, IMO. Certainly Shutterstock deserves some credit (and no one would even be mentioning Fotolia if Adobe hadn't purchased them), but they have benefitted hugely from Getty's eff-ups and crappy treatment of contributors across their various segments.
It's interesting that they are claiming only 8 million exclusive images. As SS has 40 million it would work out at only equivalent to one extra for every 5 at SS - but, of course, the crazy uploading system and low returns must mean that SS is getting content that people no longer bother to send to IS, so it will have its own quasi-exclusive stuff. Overall, iStock seems to be claiming 20.6 million images (I assume that's what the bizarre landing page reference to "LifesizeImages" means), so SS is double its size.
-
as i see it, the entire creative world is going to crumble due to the Internet and Digital and Globalization.
it will take 10-15 more years to create a new balance and a "new order" but the golden days will never ever come back.
You mean US and UK creative world, not the entire creative world? Because, for some of us the golden days have just started, thanks to globalization.
Thinking your golden days have just started in this business, is... kind of naive. It's like those people reporting a 100% growing just because they sold two more images than the previous month :-\
Or are you telling us that you have recently started to make thousands of dollars a month?
-
The latter.
-
I think the bonds look overpriced considering the debt to equity level. I don't know how the Carlyle group will make a profit from their expensive purchase at 3.3B in 2012.
The company isn't going away as there are always bottom feeders that could shop the company for 2B or less and continue on. The situation doesn't look good for contributors long term as a company in dire straights will cut even more to stay afloat. Who will be the new owners? I don't think a spin off IPO will work in this market.
-
If Getty declared chapter 11 and contributors lost their royalties, how many would pull their portfolios, assuming they could? That would leave Getty with only their wholly owned collections. Hardly enough to interest potential buyers, except to buy off individual collections piecemeal, or realize sustainable sales levels. What would happen to iStock is problematic. It's possible they could be sold off as a standalone agency, but given their present situation that could also be an issue. Would contributors also start to bail from them as well?
Any way you slice it, it's not a healthy situation.
-
If Getty declared chapter 11
For those who haven't a clue what that means, according to Wikipedia:
"Chapter 11 is a chapter of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which permits reorganization under the bankruptcy laws of the United States. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is available to every business, whether organized as a corporation, partnership or sole proprietorship, and to individuals, although it is most prominently used by corporate entities.
In contrast, Chapter 7 governs the process of a liquidation bankruptcy (although liquidation can go under this chapter), while Chapter 13 provides a reorganization process for the majority of private individuals."
-
relax guys, in the worst case scenario they will split the company or sell iStock and Getty Reportage.
-
Here's a longer write-up on Getty's situation.
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.no/2015/02/getty-images-downward-spiral-approaches.html (http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.no/2015/02/getty-images-downward-spiral-approaches.html)
Conclusion - it doesn't look good (for Getty)
-
I wonder if Yuri is reading his get out clause :)
-
I wonder if Yuri is reading his get out clause :)
Filed with Messrs Stuffem & Runn
-
Hobostocker, all good points here, I agree.
I just wanted to share with all of you here that I'm happy because I'm doing well in microstock world. I know that it won't last forever and I know that for many photographers this microstock thing is just not working. I helped many fellow photographers get into this business and most of them have already given up.
If you ever decide to move to Serbia drop me a PM, I would be happy to show you around and help you.
i stayed in Beograd a few weeks in 2004 everything was great and it was still not much touristic, i also made very nice photos in downtown but i also explored the suburbs including a few rough areas where they filmed some movied by Dragojevic (at the time i was a bit of a movie freak) hahaha no big deal just keep a low profile ... i remember also people swimming in the Sava there was a beach on an island ... it's crazy thinking at the time there were just 2-3 guesthouses in downtown and now there are dozens, things changed quickly ! i will certainly PM if i stop in Beograd ! :)
as for living costs : well, what's * the living costs across Europe is the sky-high rental prices in the major cities but apart that i can say the cost of food is now on par with east asia and south east asia in many ways, electronics is almost on par, clothes are cheaper in asia unless you want quality stuff, gas/petrol is cheaper here but not by a big margin apart in Indonesia (half dollar for a litre !) so all in all we'll see but i'm getting tired of the asian "format" as ultimately now that the Euro is in free fall i'm getting less bang for my bucks that i would in eastern europe and maybe also south america.
i don't think eatern europe is going to suffer from another boom/bust economic cycle, i'm looking at the prices in Czech republic for instance and they're still affordable no matter if they're bordering Germany and Austria.
other options : Greece ? Portugal ?
-
Dragojevic is still filming, I like his movies :D. Serbia is still cheaper for living than Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, but not much. Greece, Portugal, Spain are wonderful if you like living on seaside.
-
Here's a longer write-up on Getty's situation.
[url]http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.no/2015/02/getty-images-downward-spiral-approaches.html[/url] ([url]http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.no/2015/02/getty-images-downward-spiral-approaches.html[/url])
Conclusion - it doesn't look good (for Getty)
interesting.
his theory is that Getty scre-wed photographers so much (especially News photogs) that if Getty disappears the newspapers and wire services will be forced to pay higher fees for both stock and assignments.
well this COULD happen but where the money is coming from considering the publishing/news industry is under fire and struggling to survive ?
while there's still a lot of money in TV i don't see the same scenario on printed magazines apart those specialized in gossip and celebrities.
by the way, for news photographers it won't be a big deal as they're already making a pittance with Getty & friends, until you make the frontpage of the NYT you can barely pay your bills with that job and i know guys scrapping the bottom even if they live in cheap places like cambodia or indonesia, i'm not talking about London or NYC where you need 500$ a WEEK to rent a sh-it room.
-
That is a good article leaf, thank you for sharing.
I am still surprised that nobody on wallstreet saw through the getty smoke screen for so many years, it was such an obviously badly run place by people who have no clue how to grow a business themselves organically. Which is why they kept trying to buy places run by people more clever than they were, but unfortunatly then brought them down to their own level instead of learning from them. They even had to be taken off the stock market years ago, inspite of all the amazing opportunities the internet gave them.
Contributors have been accurately predicting what will happen for years now, which made fotolia and SS stronger because we didn´t wait until the getty house burned down. We just follow the money and work in a logical way.
This Titanic is crashing into an iceberg that has been painted red and yellow,has strong signal lights blinking madly and signal horns in all directions. And they have been moving straight ahead into it, right into the biggest source of pain they can find.
The only thing left to wonder about for 2015: what kind of mad, suicidal "exciting" new business plan and abrupt changes do they have coming this year,preferably in September, the main buying season? What kind of new dramatic drama are they planning to throw on their poor customers and contributors??
They love the drama and they love the pain. I guess somewhere, someone is making money will the ship burns.
My sympathies for the employees and hard working artists that are still tied to them. Going indie is really not easy, but at least you will have peace of mind and you will see growth again if you work hard.
-
It's quite amusing to go back less than 18 months and see Bunhill and Tickstock telling me that the evidence I cited of falling iStock sales was completely meaningless and I was reaching absurd conclusions:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-%27new%27-is/msg351483/#msg351483 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-%27new%27-is/msg351483/#msg351483)
-
The downside for iStock contributors is that we now get paid on a monthly basis instead of the option to cash out weekly. This means when Getty files for bankruptcy protection, and perhaps can't pay out to its contributors anymore, that we stand to lose a month's income rather than only a week's income. But most likely the one thing they would do in a Chapter 11 filing would be to continue to pay their contributors at least. If they can't at least do that then all contributors would pull their images and the doors would be closed completely. So most likely that won't happen. Or if they get bought out and taken over by another investment group then that group would most likely pick up paying off the contributors. The most dangerous thing that could happen would be for them to lose their only tangible assets, which are our photos. So perhaps we are not at such risk of not being paid. Time will tell I guess. If one month your PayPal account stops going Ka-Ching, then you know it's time to fasten your seat belts cause Kansas is going bye-bye.
-
This is what I was looking for:
http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/hf-presses-on-with-$4-billion-getty-images-sale/msg267660/#msg267660
Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 15, 2012, 08:03
It's incredible the way they pile more and more debt onto it and proclaim it's worth more and more. It reminds me of the famous Dutch tulip price bubble.
Reply from Gostwyck:
I don't get it either. It's not even as if the business is growing in any significant way. The markets into which Getty sells are getting more competitive and/or are in decline in the case of newspapers and magazines. Since H&F bought Getty they appear to have added little value, stripped it of cash and piled it with debt. I guess you have to admire them for having pulled the sale off.
And, also from me: didn't Getty pay HF before it had the first lot of debt piled onto it? With this new deal it has to repay the original debt, the new debt and then produce an additional billion for Carlyle to get their cash back. Is it then going to get passed on to someone else for $5b with $4b of that coming from bank loans, while Carlyle gloat over their profits? Is it some sort of create-money-from-debt perpetual motion machine?
I suppose if it becomes impossible to repay, the debt will be split up into tiny sums bundled into a "sub prime" package and sold on at twice its value to unsuspecting private punters, leaving the investment funds and bankers laughing. Or am I being too cynical?
Modify message
« Last Edit: August 15, 2012, 09:06 by BaldricksTrousers »
The question is, if a couple of ordinary guys could see where this was going two and a half years ago, how could Carlyle with all their fancy experts and access to the books fail to notice it?
-
The question is, if a couple of ordinary guys could see where this was going two and a half years ago, how could Carlyle with all their fancy experts and access to the books fail to notice it?
They were probably just assessing if the story is believable enough for the average naive investor. If SS and Fotolia weren´t this successful, nobody would notice.
Or Jonathan Klein is one hell of a salesman who can turn fog into gold and diamonds and they fell for it. A sale between buddies and all that...
-
If Getty go into bankruptcy the game is over for iStock all the contributors and buyers would leave, but on the upside the other Agencies would be the winners.
-
It's quite amusing to go back less than 18 months and see Bunhill and Tickstock telling me that the evidence I cited of falling iStock sales was completely meaningless and I was reaching absurd conclusions:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-%27new%27-is/msg351483/#msg351483[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-%27new%27-is/msg351483/#msg351483[/url])
Where have I said that you were reaching "absurd conclusions" ? If I have said that then I apologise unconditionally - not for being wrong, but for being rude. I am happy to be wrong in a guessing game but I am not here to be rude or impolite to people. The point I think I was making was that the data is incomplete. I still believe that the data was and is incomplete - and without context.
I am very curious about the motivations of the anonymous sources behind all of this reporting. I am struggling to understand why anyone on the inside of those meetings would be motivated to blab. The motivation for the leaking must surely be part of the story. Who benefits ?
-
I don't think that story relied on inside information - the numbers are all out there, they just collated them and spun them into a story. And the result was very obvious and easily predicted in many threads here. I liked this quote, "There is a strong distaste amongst contributors about the constant decline in the contributors’ share of licensing revenues, so a short-term shift further of even worse percentages would create a long term problem from which Getty would never recover." It looks to me like they are probably already in a situation from which they will never recover. If expenses are greater than income and they can't borrow more then bankruptcy will be the only option. The only questions are when and whether it will be Chapter 11 or Chapter 7. My guess is the latter, unfortunately.
It looks like iS may have almost done Sean L a favor when they booted him off - gave him time to diversify before the crash. I wonder what Mr. Arcurs thinks now about dealing with professionals? (although I'm sure he will land on his feet regardless)
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/business/dealbook/carlyles-3-founders-get-pay-packages-of-800-million.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/business/dealbook/carlyles-3-founders-get-pay-packages-of-800-million.html)
Not everyone is have a hard time.
-
Where have I said that you were reaching "absurd conclusions" ?
You didn't, not as such, but I felt it was the general tenor of the discussion.
-
Getty needs the support of artists now more than ever, while at the same time artists are moving away from 20% as an acceptable royalty rate. That's a problem I don't think Getty will be able to overcome. They should have changed that years ago, and now it's too late, they couldn't afford to pay a more fair rate if they wanted to.
The myth of 50% (or more) royalties being "unsustainable" is long dead, and companies like Getty who won't change that are going to be replaced by companies who don't bull---- artists and pay fairly.
-
This is more inline with reality! http://blog.melchersystem.com/2015/02/27/chronicle-of-a-death-foretold/ (http://blog.melchersystem.com/2015/02/27/chronicle-of-a-death-foretold/)
-
I don't think that story relied on inside information
The Bloomberg piece (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-run-tight-on-cash-as-profit-drops) linked to in the original post of this thread, and on which the other articles have been based specifically states that the reporting is based on information from …
two people with knowledge of the company’s finances … who asked not to be identified because they weren’t authorized to speak about the private report
-
there is nothing in that article jeff, I am sorry. they are just saying that they believe getty has a mystery plan that one day they will make money again. But there is absolutely nothing in their track record to prove they have the slightest clue how. they again spin the same story that the free image links will magically generate money one day. And the same nonsense how debts don't matter.
Nobody believes getty is a technology business, combining a few buzzwords don't make you one.
They are in complete denial over their situation and as long as they are, they won't improve.
and in the article you mention the downgrade isn't discussed, the downgrade is the reasons for all these articles.
All they do is pump out more smoke.
800 million revenue that keeps falling, 2,6 billion in debt and a management in denial without any vision.
The market has rated their bonds as junk, it can't be more obvious what is coming next.
-
It's just a flesh wound!
-
This is more inline with reality! [url]http://blog.melchersystem.com/2015/02/27/chronicle-of-a-death-foretold/[/url] ([url]http://blog.melchersystem.com/2015/02/27/chronicle-of-a-death-foretold/[/url])
He does have some good points
-
The best thing that could ever happen to iStock would be for Getty to spin them off to make some quick money. Getting out from under Getty is the only way iStock will ever bounce back.
-
The best thing that could ever happen to iStock would be for Getty to spin them off to make some quick money. Getting out from under Getty is the only way iStock will ever bounce back.
I don't think it will ever recover under Getty, but I'm nervous of the Devil I don't know.
-
It is true that a debt will only become a major problem when the major creditors demand immediate payments of the principals. The question remains whether or not Getty has enough operation money when its current liabilities (including operational costs, loan interests and contributor's license fees) become due. Furthermore, after being downgraded to junk bond status, whether or not Getty can attract more loans to cover its current liabilities.
It is likely Getty will get some risk-taking loan lenders. However, it must implement new strategies to satisfy new lenders. I just hope that the new strategies will not further alienate its buyers and suppliers, or it will have not many "assets" left.
It is not true that there's nothing to worry about. The writing has been on the wall. Getty has been restructuring by merging its accounting to the States and reducing the contributor's pay-out to once a month, at least we know that much.
-
The best thing that could ever happen to iStock would be for Getty to spin them off to make some quick money. Getting out from under Getty is the only way iStock will ever bounce back.
Does istock still exist? It seems completely absorbed by Getty to me, I don't think they could spin it off and who would they sell it to? Selling to one of their rivals wouldn't be a good business move.
-
I guess we can expect more cheap but massive "Google-deals" soon which will bring Getty some immediate cash in a short run
-
Knowing how Getty are in such a rut, I can't wait to see what will be the next bright idea they will roll out to contributors that will end up earning everyone a lot less, but will be again spun as another great way to make everyone more money. It will be hard to beat the last great idea when they got rid of all the small sized photo buyers in one swoop by charging 3 credits for all exclusive pictures.
I liked when they used to assign F-Keys to their brain-farts. F5 was a great one. Also known as the day "they pressed the self destruct button" the first time.
Maybe the next one they will name as Control-Alt-Delete since those are the 3 buttons one normally presses to try and recover from a complete system crash.
-
The market has rated their bonds as junk, it can't be more obvious what is coming next.
Junk : sounds like a terribly pejorative term - but junk bonds can be a great investment -> { what people always say about them is that “the bad news is already priced in” }
Meanwhile I am still very curious about the origins of this story and about the motivations behind the leak. There is always a reason for a leak. That’s the most interesting part of this story IMO. Who leaked it and why ?
Jim Pickerell hinted at this story here (http://www.microstockgroup.com/24479/24479/msg409628/#msg409628) on this forum a few days ago (the day before the first Bloomberg piece (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/getty-images-outlook-blurs-as-photo-rivalry-triggers-price-war) in which he is also quoted. All of the other articles on the web follow from that.
I wonder whether the writer had spoken to the two anonymous sources or whether the information came via Jim Pickerell. Or maybe he got his lead via the Bloomberg reporter.
Paul Melcher is a reliable voice and the piece which Jeff linked to (http://blog.melchersystem.com/2015/02/27/chronicle-of-a-death-foretold/) has a lot of merit IMO. I have the impression however that some people here are letting their feelings color their analysis.
-
i think the numbers are pretty easy to read. if you have to pay more than 400 Dollars of interest every month, but only have 52 dollars from your monthly income...you have a very, very serious problem.
Moodys isn't concerned with paying back the whole debt, just pointing out their monthly cash flow is so low they need additional loans just to pay for the interest
Here is the nicely done example from the article (it´s right at the beginning - http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.no/2015/02/getty-images-downward-spiral-approaches.html (http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.no/2015/02/getty-images-downward-spiral-approaches.html)):
"Simpler? ok try this:
Assume you have a $30,000 credit card debt. The interest rate is 17%, so you are required to pay $418.89 a month – just in interest. In this example, using the numbers/income that apply to Getty’s situation, you would only have $52.36 of your income you can use to pay down your debt, thus you have NO WAY of paying off a mounting debt when your monthly increase in debt is 8 times what you have to pay down the debt.
I can’t make it more simple than that.
If any banker looked at your situation above, there is no way they would loan you more money, it would be highly irresponsible – even predatory lenders wouldn’t touch the above situation. As such, Getty is doomed.
"
Where will those loans come from? who will give them money just to pay monthly interest?
how will they invest in marketing or their Business?
how can they compete against two competitors without debt and millions to aggressively grow their Business?
There are no magical miracles hiding in their numbers
-
Bravo to all the conspiracy theorists, but the chances of Bloomberg publishing such a pointed and comprehensive article like that about a company's financial state of affairs based on purely unsubstantiated conjecture and speculation is pretty remote.
Plus, based purely on the fact that everyone is selling about 10% the number of files that they were a few years ago, I think there is no reason to doubt that the dire state of the company is any way exaggerated by those articles.
-
I think Brian Williams works for Bloomberg now ;)
-
The market has rated their bonds as junk, it can't be more obvious what is coming next.
Junk : sounds like a terribly pejorative term - but junk bonds can be a great investment -> { what people always say about them is that “the bad news is already priced in” }
Meanwhile I am still very curious about the origins of this story and about the motivations behind the leak. There is always a reason for a leak. That’s the most interesting part of this story IMO. Who leaked it and why ?
Jim Pickerell hinted at this story here ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/24479/24479/msg409628/#msg409628[/url]) on this forum a few days ago (the day before the first Bloomberg piece ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/getty-images-outlook-blurs-as-photo-rivalry-triggers-price-war[/url]) in which he is also quoted. All of the other articles on the web follow from that.
I wonder whether the writer had spoken to the two anonymous sources or whether the information came via Jim Pickerell. Or maybe he got his lead via the Bloomberg reporter.
Paul Melcher is a reliable voice and the piece which Jeff linked to ([url]http://blog.melchersystem.com/2015/02/27/chronicle-of-a-death-foretold/[/url]) has a lot of merit IMO. I have the impression however that some people here are letting their feelings color their analysis.
Who can be the anonymous sources? My guess is Getty's plight must have affected people who are in the managerial or financial positions and anyone whose interests will be adversely affected by the financial difficulties. Or even those who stand to gain because of it.
We all know how much our own portfolio has suffered in 2014, if we don't insist on burying our heads in sand.
-
The myth of 50% (or more) royalties being "unsustainable" is long dead, and companies like Getty who won't change that are going to be replaced by companies who don't bull---- artists and pay fairly.
I fully agree. Lets say instead that 20% royalty are not sustainable since your suppliers will abandon you and leave you (getty) standing there alone in the rain with lots of debt.
If you still think to abandon istock / istock exclusivity = NOW is the moment to make them feel and rescue for yourself what is left.
-
The best thing that could ever happen to iStock would be for Getty to spin them off to make some quick money. Getting out from under Getty is the only way iStock will ever bounce back.
Does istock still exist? It seems completely absorbed by Getty to me, I don't think they could spin it off and who would they sell it to? Selling to one of their rivals wouldn't be a good business move.
Sell it back to Bruce Livingstone, the iStock originator. I'd guess he could use only a part of his earlier sale price to buy it back. He would still have good living money and also have his baby back.
-
The best thing that could ever happen to iStock would be for Getty to spin them off to make some quick money. Getting out from under Getty is the only way iStock will ever bounce back.
Does istock still exist? It seems completely absorbed by Getty to me, I don't think they could spin it off and who would they sell it to? Selling to one of their rivals wouldn't be a good business move.
Sell it back to Bruce Livingstone, the iStock originator. I'd guess he could use only a part of his earlier sale price to buy it back. He would still have good living money and also have his baby back.
But the baby has grown into a monstrous, abusive teen while he was away.
-
This is more inline with reality! [url]http://blog.melchersystem.com/2015/02/27/chronicle-of-a-death-foretold/[/url] ([url]http://blog.melchersystem.com/2015/02/27/chronicle-of-a-death-foretold/[/url])
You're one of the few people who've been reporting an increase in earnings. Just because you're full from dinner doesn't mean there isn't hunger in the world, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, I think it was.
-
The truth is somewhere between both articles. However as junk bonds go Getty is in a bind because their assets are not really all that hard. Sure they have millions of exclusively owned images but that market is small compared to the entire library and if the suppliers get cut even lower than 20% average then they will continue to leave for greener pastures further eroding the Getty library.
They should spin off iStock and let it go on it's own, I bet that would get a lot of cash in the process. However long term it doesn't make sense. Getty and iStock are stronger together and the entire imaging stock market benefits from Getty surviving. No player should get so big as to have all the cards when it comes to the futures of suppliers and Getty got mighty close but those ways need to change in order for it to regain market share. That means lower prices for clients and better royalty % for suppliers.
In 2007 the full year revenue was $860m for 2011 $945 million $879 million for the 12 months that ended Sept. 30 for 2014.
Whatever they are doing is keeping them in the revenue range with decreasing but not off a cliff income. It's not as if they are earning 50% less even when many suppliers are due to reductions in our cuts.
It won't go out of business but these articles might help a new buyer get in on the cheap and absorb the debt for pennies. The most money is done when there is blood in the streets and everything looks dire. That is when the sharks come in and scoop up the pieces and digest them to make a killing later on.
Layoffs and some continued reduced revenue will probably come but not at the cost of Getty the company disappearing. Shutterstock's stock is way down from it's highs last year of $99.38 it is now $56.55 but it went up too fast for it's own good. It went down even when revenue is accelerating. Speculators have taken it for a ride.
It will be an interesting year for sure on the direction of the entire stock business.
-
Thanks James, couldn't have said it better myself!
-
Getty has been owned by sharks two times now. Do you really want another hedge fund to get in,chew them through and resell them with a huge profit to themselves and more debt in 3 years?
I hope they can find a real owner, someone with a vision who wants to keep them longterm, brings in their own management and genuinely tries to grow the business in a logical way.
Moodys just looked at free cash - in Q3 2014 they had 41 million in free cash, in Q4 they had 27 million. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-run-tight-on-cash-as-profit-drops (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/carlyle-s-getty-images-said-to-run-tight-on-cash-as-profit-drops)
So what will their cash flow be like this quarter? It will be lower than in Q4, won´t it? So when moodys does their next assessment, what will they say?
The problem is not that they have stopped selling files, the question is can the pay their running costs, including debts and marketing. Free cash, not revenue.
And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?
-
And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?
Bruce? ;)
-
In 2007 the full year revenue was $860m for 2011 $945 million $879 million for the 12 months that ended Sept. 30 for 2014.
Sorry, but these numbers miss the point. It's what has happened AFTER Sept 30 2014 that is important. Getty has just announced a drop in iStock revenue for the 4th quarter of 17% (ie after your numbers quoted above). That represents a potential annualised drop of circa $50 million in a full year. In other words the EXPECTED revenue for the year ending Sept 2015 is now $50 million less than before ie less than in 2007. That's why the bond market plunged - fear of next year and beyond.
The problem is that the drop isn't a 'one off'; it's not something due to special expenses or extra investment - it's a drop in recurring revenue.
And this is on top of the 7% drop in iStock revenue the previous twelve months (as reported by Moodys).
-
And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?
Bruce? ;)
I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
-
And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?
Bruce? ;)
I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
I was just kidding.
But the real problem is that it's not just a business that's being bought, sold, traded, and reported on. It's not anyone's passion, which has resulted in buyers and contributors losing their passion. It really is too bad.
-
Getty are a zombie company with the level of debt they have, unable to invest or innovate, this leads me to think that they will go bankrupt, then they will be out of the game, istock will be finished as all there customers will walk, the content can be bought else where.
Parts of Getty will survive, not sure which bits though.
The question is, which of the smaller stock companies are going to break through to the top level by capitalizing on Getty's misfortune.
-
Bill Gates's - Corbis could buy them up Reduce redundancy and just become stronger in the process. Since they are unprofitable as far as I know it could mean a way for them to be so.
If I had the cash I would buy Getty but I would turn it into a fair commission and fair for clients price place. Which in turn would probably run me to the ground as the debt is so high, it would take years for it to change enough with clients to turn the necessary profit to dig out.
Whomever buys it has to have a way to pay the debt outside of the ability of the company itself to do so. Pay the debt with outside cash or an IPO and then restructure and fix it from within. Then it can fundamentaly change for the better and turn a profit.
-
It's quite amusing to go back less than 18 months and see Bunhill and Tickstock telling me that the evidence I cited of falling iStock sales was completely meaningless and I was reaching absurd conclusions:
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-%27new%27-is/msg351483/#msg351483[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/istockphoto-com/the-%27new%27-is/msg351483/#msg351483[/url])
Sorry where did I say that? From the link you are apparently referring to it looks like I said everyone isn't down 40% (I don't think I called your conclusions absurd, I still think they were wrong though). If the article about Getty is correct they were down 17% (after a lot more changes right?) so the 30-40% number still looks high. I would expect since they introduced subs that earnings are down, subs are bad and they hurt contributors earnings. You won't get any disagreement from me that subs are not good for us.
-
And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?
Bruce? ;)
I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
Getty was much respected and loved by their photographers at one time. They used to make a lot of money for their photogs.
-
Whomever buys it has to have a way to pay the debt outside of the ability of the company itself to do so. Pay the debt with outside cash or an IPO and then restructure and fix it from within. Then it can fundamentaly change for the better and turn a profit.
It would take that AND a new management with real business vision. Because there are two competing companies who are growing and making profits. They are not being run as a hobby by a billionaire.
Yes Bill Gates or someone similar who is simply passionate about saving art. Bill Gates could probably absorb Getty into Corbis.
So lets hope for a kind millionaire investor.
But the growth story will probably be with adobe and shutterstock, because while getty is slowly restructured over several years or absorbed into something else, they will continue to aggressively grow their business and hunt after the getty customers.
-
And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?
Bruce? ;)
I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
Getty was much respected and loved by their photographers at one time. They used to make a lot of money for their photogs.
'At one time', sure. But not by the time of the sale.
-
Adobe could buy Getty whenever they want, no questions about it, but then why they grabbed Fotolia instead ?
same for Microsoft, what would be the point ? they never managed to seriously integrate Corbis content into their products so far, for instance i can't remember any integration with MS Office where tons of users would be more than happy to have access to such a big archive of images.
-
Will the fact that it looks like they could go bankrupt at some point make buyers look elsewhere now? Will they feel comfortable paying subscription fees upfront or will they go back to paying for individual images?
Are the Carlyle Group just going to write off Getty? Looks like some of their previous acquisitions have ended up filing for bankruptcy, is Getty too big to fail or just a small part of their portfolio that can be written off? I'm guessing the latter.
This one is interesting, Oriental Trading Company was owned by the Carlyle Group and filed for bankruptcy and was then purchased by Berkshire Hathaway. Time for some wild speculation, would be interesting if Warren Buffett got Getty, he is friends with Bill Gates who owns Corbis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Trading_Company
-
Debt. It's a sure path to slavery. Surely that debt placed on Getty was a set up. Even back in 2012 we contributors knew the trajectory was downwards. Carlyle Getty crapola funny business screwing up real people's lives.
-
So far some of the list of possible Getty buyers from this thread include:
Bruce Livingstone
Microsoft
Shutterstock
Adobe
Warren Buffet
I say lets add:
Tedd Turner
Rupert Murdoch
Apple
Google
Viacom
Time Warner
Disney
Facebook
Bloomberg
Outliers:
Richard Branson
Donald Trump
Larry Ellison
Oprah Winfrey
George Soros
Carl Icahn
Steve Forbes
Did I miss anyone?
-
Did I miss anyone?
Yes: the stock (financials) buying public. Still a possible eventual owner IMO.
-
they might indeed still offer for an IPO.
i have no idea how they would spin it into a success Story, but they could try.
so I would add IPO to the list.
and I would also add "Hedgefonds " or maybe some people here know the investor Scene and can add a few groups.
finally: what about the Gettyfamily? could they bring in a few Billion Dollars or take over the debt to save their prestige toy?
-
Did I miss anyone?
Sean?
-
Debt. It's a sure path to slavery. Surely that debt placed on Getty was a set up. Even back in 2012 we contributors knew the trajectory was downwards. Carlyle Getty crapola funny business screwing up real people's lives.
H&F raped the company and us and sold it to Carlyle. Getty has a big part of the whole Getty all the time. Soon IS will merge into Getty in the US and Canada Ops. will be gone. Consoligation.
-
I don't quite see how it will really be possible to spin off any of the Getty "assets" to try and save Getty, which I just consider links now to the main Getty site anyway. With all this pulling in of other sites under the Getty umbrella that has been going on, and trying to in essence remove the iStock brand in a way and convert it to a Getty brand, what would a buyer really be buying? Maybe just a decent domain name at this point? I may be exaggerating a bit on the weak value of iStock as an asset, but all the Getty collections are incestuous now. iStock content is all over the Getty site and even more Getty content is on the iStock site. So perhaps a part of what keeps iStock buyers there for all we know is the access to the Getty site content at lower iStock prices and vice versa. If you unhook the sites then you stand to lose buyers at both sites because you no longer can offer the buyers in each of the stores the same access to all the same collective content. So from an investor standpoint why would you want to buy iStock knowing you will lose a lot of the content available through iStock as soon as it is decoupled from Getty? Had they not married the sites together then an investor could more easily asses the future potential of the site. Now, who knows if iStock is simply a link to funnel traffic into the Getty site or if the Getty site is a way to sell their buyers cheaper iStock content from an investors standpoint and maybe investors don't want to take the risk of buying into that unknown. Either way, even if revenue for contributors doesn't drop if they decouple the sites I can see it not looking attractive to an investor for the reasons I just mentioned. But the truth is iStock contributors would lose any sales they are making from Getty if the two site are decoupled which could be another considerable hit to contributor revenue for some iStock contributors who get a decent Getty bump every month.
-
I don't quite see how it will really be possible to spin off any of the Getty "assets" to try and save Getty ... the truth is iStock contributors would lose any sales they are making from Getty if the two site are decoupled ... etc
Nobody serious is suggesting that iStock could or would be "de - coupled" from Getty or sold off on its own. iStock and Getty images compliment each other - it's like running two different shops.
However Jim Pickerell (quoted as a source in the Bloomberg article) has elsewhere suggested that Getty's prestigious editorial "asset" could be sold off.
-
I just remembered this quote from Rebecca Rockafellar on IS forum:
"... We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring..."
http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591 (http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591)
-
And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?
Bruce? ;)
I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
Getty was much respected and loved by their photographers at one time. They used to make a lot of money for their photogs.
'At one time', sure. But not by the time of the sale.
I guess my point is that whoever took over Getty at some point, back when, lacked the Midas touch. iStock too was much loved and respected by their photographers. I had a look at their forum last week and it's anything but this now.
-
And who would want to buy Getty? Can anyone think of a good new owner?
Bruce? ;)
I'm ambivalent.
He sold to Getty. I don't blame him for selling, that's business.
But Getty had such a bad reputation among photographers, and he surely knew that.
Getty was much respected and loved by their photographers at one time. They used to make a lot of money for their photogs.
'At one time', sure. But not by the time of the sale.
I guess my point is that whoever took over Getty at some point, back when, lacked the Midas touch. iStock too was much loved and respected by their photographers. I had a look at their forum last week and it's anything but this now.
Indeed, and that's without those of us who are banned sine die.
-
I just remembered this quote from Rebecca Rockafellar on IS forum:
"... We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring..."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591[/url])
I hope someone pointed out at that time that there were some of us who think they are lazy, incompetent, greedy, and uncaring. And probably more who feel that way by now.
-
I just remembered this quote from Rebecca Rockafellar on IS forum:
"... We get it, you guys are mad. And reading the forums for the past year has made it clear that some of you think we are lazy, incompetent, greedy or uncaring..."
[url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591[/url] ([url]http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=349591[/url])
Great flashback. Perhaps we need some stronger adjectives now to describe the state of our current feelings. How about: Inept, Inadequate, Foolish, And Pathetic? I say we keep "Greedy" though. I think that one still suits well and will remain appropriate indefinitely.
-
At least somebody is doing well
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/business/dealbook/carlyles-3-founders-get-pay-packages-of-800-million.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/business/dealbook/carlyles-3-founders-get-pay-packages-of-800-million.html?_r=0)
-
So far some of the list of possible Getty buyers from this thread include:
...
Did I miss anyone?
Autodesk. They are a competitor of Adobe and already own Creative Market. The acquisition of a traditional RF image seller might make sense for them. A lot of photographers and 2D people don't understand that Autodesk is huge company and in some ways a bigger player in the larger world of graphic software than Adobe is. The production of almost every big feature film uses Autodesk software and Autocad is to the design of real-life products what Photoshop is to photos. Compared to Autocad, Adobe Illustrator is a cheap toy.
I use some Autodesk software and am not necessarily a big fan of the company. Autodesk suffers some of the same flaws and faults as Adobe. However, they literally could not be any worse than the present and past management of iStock, who were and are dishonest incompetent fools.
-
Anyone remember 2007?
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T038-C008-S001-getty-images-adapting-to-change.html (http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T038-C008-S001-getty-images-adapting-to-change.html)
On January 30, [2007] the first trading day after the earnings announcement, Getty's stock (symbol GYI) jumped 9%. It gained another 2% on January 31, closing at $49.27. Why such optimism? On further inspection, Getty's fourth-quarter results revealed that the company ended an otherwise disappointing year on a high note.
How Getty is adapting to change... :)
But what really happened?
February 25, 2008
Hellman & Friedman is acquiring Getty Images for about $2.4 billion in a deal that would make the powerful but financially troubled seller of stock photography into a privately owned company, the companies said Monday.
Getty shareholders will receive $34 per share, and Hellman & Friedman will assume the company's debt under the deal, the companies said. That price is a 29 percent premium over Friday's closing price of $24.45; on Monday, the stock closed at $31.67.
Getty's board has approved the acquisition and resolved to recommend the transaction to shareholders; the deal is expected to close in the second quarter. The Seattle-based company confirmed in January it was " exploring strategic alternatives ."
http://www.cnet.com/news/getty-images-goes-private-in-2-4-billion-deal/# (http://www.cnet.com/news/getty-images-goes-private-in-2-4-billion-deal/#)!
Let be point this out... January 2007 adapting = stock was $49.27 a share. One year later, "29 percent premium over Friday's closing price of $24.45" The Getty stock was valued on the market of half what it was a year before.
Hellman & Friedman is acquiring Getty Images for about $2.4 billion
Aug. 15, 2012 -- Carlyle Group LP, the world’s second-largest private-equity firm, agreed to buy photo archive Getty Images Inc. from Hellman & Friedman LLC in a deal valued at $3.3 billion.
Last of all, H&F must not have really owned Getty because: "Carlyle will acquire a controlling stake in the company, while Getty co-founder and Chairman Mark Getty and the Getty family will roll “substantially all” of their ownership interests into the transaction, Washington-based Carlyle said today in a statement. Getty Images’ management, including co-founder and Chief Executive Officer Jonathan Klein, will also invest “significant equity” in the company, Carlyle said."
Here we are watching the money game going on, and looking at Getty Adapting to change yet again. Anyone remember, The Arabian Nights stories? Some are framed within other tales, while others begin and end of their own accord. ;D
IPO, really? Three-card Monte, Shell game, sleight of hand? There's just something fishy about all these deals and how can H&F own the company when Getty, Klein, management and the family will roll their interests into the new group. Didn't they sell the company?
Whatever happens, at least I'm enjoying watching the changes and the story. More twists and turns than a earthworm on a fishing hook.
Debt. It's a sure path to slavery. Surely that debt placed on Getty was a set up. Even back in 2012 we contributors knew the trajectory was downwards. Carlyle Getty crapola funny business screwing up real people's lives.
H&F raped the company and us and sold it to Carlyle. Getty has a big part of the whole Getty all the time. Soon IS will merge into Getty in the US and Canada Ops. will be gone. Consoligation.
-
Here we are watching the money game going on, and looking at Getty Adapting to change yet again. Anyone remember, The Arabian Nights stories? Some are framed within other tales, while others begin and end of their own accord. ;D
this Arabian Nights stories is common in Wall Street,etc. Ever looked at your portfolio of mutual funds to see that each time you funds are losing money there is always a new fund introduced and your losing fund is adapted to that new funds ???
Scheherazade 's scheme has been adopted by many financial planners to confuse the investors into thinking they really made money after losing their pants. Even your top mutual funds do this.
-
It is clearly written on IS site that if you pay in Euro you'll have 10% discount. That's a bad move, because Euro is going to the parity with USD.
-
It is clearly written on IS site that if you pay in Euro you'll have 10% discount. That's a bad move, because Euro is going to the parity with USD.
Discount on what?
Whenever I go onto iS, logged in or out, I only see prices in UK£.
Don't visitors from the Eurozone see prices in Euros?
-
That's are screenshot of what I see in Italy
-
Thanks for posting.
Typical iS ambiguity. 10% less than what, exactly? (not asking you, RedOn!)
Do you have an easy option NOT to pay in Euros?
-
It seems not, but...as you know: I'm selling photos and in the rare case that I need to buy I prefere SS or FT! Anyway I believe that up to last year prices were in dollars, and I'm payed in USD. I have the site in english to practice, but in Italian is exactly the same.
-
well, even Carlyle can buy a "lemon" from time to time ... even banking giants like HSBC are losing billions now .. there's nothing strange in the actual market if a market leader company suddenly finds itself in dire straits, the entire western economy is declining globally.
besides, Carlyle paying 3 billions to buy Getty could have been a dirty operation to cover some money laundering or accounting tricks, what do we know .. nothing .. and the sell out of Getty could have been part of the plan from the start as far as we know.
and SS can not grow forever, once they reach the apex of their boom/bust cycle their stock value with fall down to a more realistic price unless they find a way to fool the investors with new M&As.
but then again, the price for the rise of SS in the stock arena has been the devaluation of their product .. our images ! like shooting oneself in the foot in order to grab the last scraps of bread on the bottom of the barrel .. and they've no reason to do otherwise as they don't "own" our images since they're mostly non exclusive RF ... it all makes sense for both buyers and sellers but it's a game that is played against our interests and it's only working for a bunch of stockers just because at this point they've a big portfolio and they invested too much time and energy to be tempted to throw everything out of the window and move to greener pastures ... as if there still were greener pastures by the way, there's not much left at this point.