Author Topic: H&F presses on with $4 billion Getty Images sale (Read 31246 times)

leaf · « **Reply #50 on:** July 30, 2012, 22:41 »

Quote from: gostwyck on July 30, 2012, 18:59

Quote from: leaf on July 30, 2012, 17:35
We are never going to totally loose getty. It's like a house property. Even if the owner goes bankrupt, the house doesn't disappear. It just falls into someone else's hands at a discounted rate. If Getty was in the discount bin, some other investor, business man, company would gobble them up.

Oh yes we will __ one day. Nothing is permanent in business. Getty didn't exist 50 years ago and it probably won't exist 50 years from now, other than having been absorbed decades earlier by a more successful business. The only real question (for us) is when that might happen and what might replace it.

The FTSE100 was started in 1984 comprising of the top 100 companies, valued by market share, listed on the LSE and collectively they had a market capitalisation of over 80% of all companies listed on the LSE. A decade later fewer than 40% of the businesses originally listed were still qualified to be registered on the FTSE100. Things change. Massively. Always.

well, I agree that getty proper won't exist but what I mean is that all their photos (which is what gives them value) aren't going to disappear. Getty could be owned and run and called google in the future but the getty images would still be there.

DeStock · « **Reply #51 on:** July 31, 2012, 11:18 »

There are no official/public figures for Getty in 2011. Just what has been released. Thus any evaluation of % of IS vs rest of business is pure speculation at this point. With that said, considering the evolution of the marketplace, it is safe to say that it certainly for a substantial amount of Getty's overall revenue and certainly offers the most potential for growth.

sharpshot · « **Reply #52 on:** July 31, 2012, 12:03 »

Hasn't Thinkstock taken a lot of the istock business? How can istock have the most potential for growth when very few of us are earning more there than a few years ago? Perhaps they've deliberately made it look like the threat of istock to Getty has diminished. That might boost the Getty valuation.

traveler1116 · « **Reply #53 on:** July 31, 2012, 12:12 »

Quote from: sharpshot on July 31, 2012, 12:03

Hasn't Thinkstock taken a lot of the istock business? How can istock have the most potential for growth when very few of us are earning more there than a few years ago? Perhaps they've deliberately made it look like the threat of istock to Getty has diminished. That might boost the Getty valuation.

Thinkstock and iStock are part of Getty.

lisafx · « **Reply #54 on:** July 31, 2012, 13:32 »

Quote from: traveler1116 on July 31, 2012, 12:12

Quote from: sharpshot on July 31, 2012, 12:03
Hasn't Thinkstock taken a lot of the istock business? How can istock have the most potential for growth when very few of us are earning more there than a few years ago? Perhaps they've deliberately made it look like the threat of istock to Getty has diminished. That might boost the Getty valuation.
Thinkstock and iStock are part of Getty.

If you follow the above discussion, it was about how large a % Istock might make up of Getty's overall revenue. So the fact that Istock and TS are part of Getty is a given.

Freedom · « **Reply #55 on:** July 31, 2012, 17:33 »

I agree with Leaf. Getty, Istock or TS may be sold to other owners and called something else, but our images will always be there. If you have a good collection of images, someone will buy.

RacePhoto · « **Reply #56 on:** August 01, 2012, 17:53 »

Quote from: pmelcher on July 31, 2012, 11:18

There are no official/public figures for Getty in 2011. Just what has been released. Thus any evaluation of % of IS vs rest of business is pure speculation at this point. With that said, considering the evolution of the marketplace, it is safe to say that it certainly for a substantial amount of Getty's overall revenue and certainly offers the most potential for growth.

OK 2010?

Here's what started me asking.

Getty Earnings
RF still imagery
2004 24%
2005 20%
2006 16%

I'd say it was falling, not growing. So if someone has 2007, 2008, 2009, or 2010 it would be good information to see what percentage of the sales come mainly from IS and ThinkStock.

Sadstock · « **Reply #57 on:** August 11, 2012, 18:23 »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/bidders-looks-to-snap-up-getty-in-3bn-deal-8034465.html#disqus_thread

Report slim on facts suggests bids were actually submitted last week.

I've no idea what it means when they say Jonathan Klein will "roll over" his ownership stake, cash out or continue to retain some ownership. Any idea?

cobalt · « **Reply #58 on:** August 11, 2012, 19:23 »

Sounds like the new owners will take over the company completly and that Jonathan Klein will no longer have voting rights as an owner. But it doesn´t say, if he will stay on as CEO.

Anyway, nothing we can do about it. Until Getty goes public we will never know how the business is really doing and I doubt the new owners will take the company public soon.

Back to the camera...

qwerty · « **Reply #59 on:** August 11, 2012, 23:38 »

Quote from: Suljo on July 30, 2012, 18:53

Quote from: leaf on July 30, 2012, 17:35
We are never going to totally loose getty. It's like a house property. Even if the owner goes bankrupt, the house doesn't disappear. It just falls into someone else's hands at a discounted rate. If Getty was in the discount bin, some other investor, business man, company would gobble them up.

Maybe for now they have only name and old content and new content is nothing special (Vetta DeBileta most) + * money from "both" IS contributors (ex and non ex). Money which they just sucked and testing a ground how they will give Mooooreeeeee

Maybe I am too boooooorring to all of you because this is my 3rd or 4th post about the same sick history at that subject.
For me it perfectly fits in my theory about black mailing old daddy Getty when he was live.

----------------------------------------------------------

First
Daddy Getty when he was a live was some kind of rich collector and he was blackmailed by Mafia.
Because of that how he can avoid that, he made public Foundation.
As in term of any Foundation is that it is to be sustainable as itself.
This is more visible as GettyImages site which can even afford that to by iStock site.

Second
Somehow Getty Foundation which is sustainable as it self which is not on free market with somehow process was purchased with murky Offshore lets say "investors" H&F(uckers) MAFIA.

Third
Seam As is
H&F = hidden MAFIA which came back to take easy money and they suck it now
This is front end
--------------------
For contributor back end is constantly lowering commissions throwing sand in the contributors eyes and selling the story of exclusivity and unsustainability?! what?!

Anyhow H&F is sckin Getty> Getty is sckin iStock> iStock is cheating us contributors.
H&F(uckers) (read Mafia not in figurative sense but in real) are making more murky debt and they deposit is Getty whole sucked and Gettys for now Livestock branches.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ Leaf
Disable that lobotomy IGNORE button
I am boring to my self in repeating same old story: How fish is stinking from head, and this forum laments of minor technical problems while Greedy sharks grabs our money in tons from our eyes, and here we have fantastic IGNORE button which will help all us to share our thoughts.
Briliant
Will something Like/Dislike button wouldnt be enough in ranking useful vs trolling?

@ GostWyck Excellent post
They might be looking at it but it is far from a done deal. It would appear that Getty's revenue has only increased from $858M in 2007 to $945M last year. That's not much to say the least. Istock would have been a tiny contributor to revenue in 2007 but now might be as much as 30% of the entire business. That suggests to me that most of the business has been in fairly serious decline (as indeed it had been prior to the H&F buyout) since then. Getty has also been stripped of $900M cash in 'dividends' over the last 18 months and saddled with tons of debt instead.

How can Getty be worth $4B or anything even remotely close to that figure? I think H&F must be hoping to find a mug punter with more spare cash than business sense but I doubt that they will be successful. We'd need to see more financial details but from what we know already I struggle to see why anyone would even offer the $2.4B that H&F originally paid for Getty.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Getty_Images_(GYI)/Filing/10-K/2008/F2564506

Add that one to the list of posts that I couldn't understand

gostwyck · « **Reply #60 on:** August 12, 2012, 11:52 »

Quote from: Sadstock on August 11, 2012, 18:23

Report slim on facts suggests bids were actually submitted last week.

I've no idea what it means when they say Jonathan Klein will "roll over" his ownership stake, cash out or continue to retain some ownership. Any idea?

It certainly is 'slim on facts' to the point where they really haven't provided anything that we didn't already know. No new press releases have appeared on the subject and no-one else is reporting on the subject,

I would interpret Klein and co "rolling over" to mean that they will be retaining their stake.

lisafx · « **Reply #61 on:** August 12, 2012, 15:21 »

Quote from: gostwyck on August 12, 2012, 11:52

I would interpret Klein and co "rolling over" to mean that they will be retaining their stake.

Really? I kind of envision him rolling over and getting a treat and a belly scratch

Sadstock · « **Reply #62 on:** August 14, 2012, 17:09 »

Looks like a deal might actually happen with Carlyle Group for $3.4 billion, but why I still can't understand. H&F would make a bit less then $2 billion - $1 billion from the sale and another $900 million from dividends they paid themselves.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #63 on:** August 15, 2012, 03:50 »

Quote from: Sadstock on August 14, 2012, 17:09

Looks like a deal might actually happen with Carlyle Group for $3.4 billion, but why I still can't understand. H&F would make a bit less then $2 billion - $1 billion from the sale and another $900 million from dividends they paid themselves.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814

I'm not even going to try to follow all these high finance calculations, but are you saying that they would make a $500m loss if they sold at that price?
I wouldn't weep if they did.

stan · « **Reply #64 on:** August 15, 2012, 03:56 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 15, 2012, 03:50

Quote from: Sadstock on August 14, 2012, 17:09
Looks like a deal might actually happen with Carlyle Group for $3.4 billion, but why I still can't understand. H&F would make a bit less then $2 billion - $1 billion from the sale and another $900 million from dividends they paid themselves.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814

I'm not even going to try to follow all these high finance calculations, but are you saying that they would make a $500m loss if they sold at that price?
I wouldn't weep if they did.

I hope someone is going to make a good deal, so they wouldn't have to squeeze contribs even further. One can even dream things would take a turn for the better, at least marginally.

sharpshot · « **Reply #65 on:** August 15, 2012, 05:11 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on August 15, 2012, 03:50

Quote from: Sadstock on August 14, 2012, 17:09
Looks like a deal might actually happen with Carlyle Group for $3.4 billion, but why I still can't understand. H&F would make a bit less then $2 billion - $1 billion from the sale and another $900 million from dividends they paid themselves.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/carlyle-group-said-to-be-leading-bidder-for-getty-images.html

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/14/uk-carlyle-gettyimages-deal-idUKBRE87D12220120814

I'm not even going to try to follow all these high finance calculations, but are you saying that they would make a $500m loss if they sold at that price?
I wouldn't weep if they did.

No, a bit less than $2billion is referring to the profit they would be making on this deal. Sadly, they will do very well if this goes through and we're left with another buyer that will want to make a big profit. Hard to see how that can be good but at least my earnings can't decline as much as they did under H&F. I would be paying them every month if that happened

Sadstock · « **Reply #66 on:** August 15, 2012, 06:22 »

It is a done deal according to the press release. Carlyle for $3.3 billion. Details not spelled out but seems like there is a lot of debt financing involved, so likely Getty will be mortgaged even further.

http://www.streetinsider.com/Press+Releases/The+Carlyle+Group+and+Getty+Images+Management+to+Acquire+Getty+Images+from+Hellman+%26amp%3B+Friedman+for+$3.3+Billion/7662646.html

fujiko · « **Reply #67 on:** August 15, 2012, 06:50 »

I see Getty falling into a bigger pool with more sharks.

leaf · « **Reply #68 on:** August 15, 2012, 07:11 »

Here's a fixed link

Getty images sold for #3.3 billion

Lagereek · « **Reply #69 on:** August 15, 2012, 07:22 »

Quote from: leaf on August 15, 2012, 07:11

Here's a fixed link

Getty images sold for #3.3 billion

Glad to see Mark Getty back in the swing, it was during his first years, between 1993, plus a few years on that we had a brillant time at Gettys, selling like crazy and everything went as smooth as anything.
Although I exepct he wont take a leading role in this event. Pitty.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #70 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.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #71 on:** August 15, 2012, 08:13 »

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.

are you sure about that? is Carlyle Group that dumb and GI that smart? or are you talking about a manipulated sale price?

it would surprise me to see them doing a bad business (one or other) once we are talking about top companies that must have very good employees

Sadstock · « **Reply #72 on:** August 15, 2012, 08:56 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on August 15, 2012, 08:13

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.

are you sure about that? is Carlyle Group that dumb and GI that smart? or are you talking about a manipulated sale price?

it would surprise me to see them doing a bad business (one or other) once we are talking about top companies that must have very good employees

------------------------------------
Somebody in this transaction is dumb, but who it is depends on how the deal is structured. :-)

Carlyle is “buying” Getty, but some amount of the financing of the deal will be with new debt, presumably secured by Getty’s assets and that Getty will have to pay back. Suppose Carlyle is paying $1 billion in cash and somebody else is giving H&F another $2.4 billion financed by the issuance of Getty corporate bonds. Carlyle only needs to pay itself $1 billion in dividends to break even, which H&F has shown was at least possible once. The bond holders are taking some risk if Getty can’t pay them back, but they would get to seize Getty assets if that is the case, so they aren’t at too big a risk either. The ones really at risk are Getty employees and contributors who might get squeezed even further.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #73 on:** August 15, 2012, 09:04 »

Quote from: Sadstock on August 15, 2012, 08:56

Quote from: luissantos84 on August 15, 2012, 08:13
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.

are you sure about that? is Carlyle Group that dumb and GI that smart? or are you talking about a manipulated sale price?

it would surprise me to see them doing a bad business (one or other) once we are talking about top companies that must have very good employees

------------------------------------
Somebody in this transaction is dumb, but who it is depends on how the deal is structured. :-)

Carlyle is “buying” Getty, but some amount of the financing of the deal will be with new debt, presumably secured by Getty’s assets and that Getty will have to pay back. Suppose Carlyle is paying $1 billion in cash and somebody else is giving H&F another $2.4 billion financed by the issuance of Getty corporate bonds. Carlyle only needs to pay itself $1 billion in dividends to break even, which H&F has shown was at least possible once. The bond holders are taking some risk if Getty can’t pay them back, but they would get to seize Getty assets if that is the case, so they aren’t at too big a risk either. The ones really at risk are Getty employees and contributors who might get squeezed even further.

But 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?

gostwyck · « **Reply #74 on:** August 15, 2012, 09:09 »

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.

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.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: H&F presses on with $4 billion Getty Images sale (Read 31246 times)

leaf

DeStock

sharpshot

traveler1116

lisafx

Freedom

RacePhoto

Sadstock

cobalt

qwerty

gostwyck

lisafx

Sadstock

BaldricksTrousers

stan

sharpshot

Sadstock

fujiko

leaf

Lagereek

BaldricksTrousers

luissantos84

Sadstock

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors