Author Topic: iStock IPO (or actually Getty) (Read 17489 times)

leaf · « **on:** May 22, 2012, 13:25 »

.. wow all this talk of IPO's.. and here's another for Getty
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/owner-getty-images-considering-sale-171517715.html

via StockPhotoTalk

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #1 on:** May 22, 2012, 13:28 »

I thought this was you being humorous! I guess H&F wants their money out and this is their latest take on how to get it.

Neither an IPO nor a KKR buyout address the issue of all that debt H&F burdened Getty with along the way - which is going to make things hard for whoever ends up owning it. A pox on predators like H&F - they walk away with their cash and leave the business with the bill.

gostwyck · « **Reply #2 on:** May 22, 2012, 13:53 »

Here's the FT article in full;

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/589b94b2-a41f-11e1-a701-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1vcsRrlg7

rubyroo · « **Reply #3 on:** May 22, 2012, 13:56 »

Blimey... is it IPO season or something?

gostwyck · « **Reply #4 on:** May 22, 2012, 13:59 »

Quote from: rubyroo on May 22, 2012, 13:56

Blimey... is it IPO season or something?

Must be. Facebook started it and that's going really well. Not.

rubyroo · « **Reply #5 on:** May 22, 2012, 14:01 »

Yeah I noticed that...

jjneff · « **Reply #6 on:** May 22, 2012, 14:04 »

I hear Bruce is buying Getty back

cthoman · « **Reply #7 on:** May 22, 2012, 14:10 »

Seems like a good time to start a stock agency and wait for these agencies to tear themselves apart.

drugal · « **Reply #8 on:** May 22, 2012, 14:14 »

"is working with Goldman Sachs (GS) and JP Morgan (JPM) to examine a possible sale or IPO of the business which was taken private four years ago"

they ringed up two other, bigger thieves with bigger knives to help carve the carcass up.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #9 on:** May 22, 2012, 15:00 »

A slightly older interview (pre-IPO talk) with Jonathan Klein. http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2012/03/jonathan-klein-on-getty-images-and-crowdsourcing.html

rinderart · « **Reply #10 on:** May 22, 2012, 15:11 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 22, 2012, 14:10

Seems like a good time to start a stock agency and wait for these agencies to tear themselves apart.

+1000

luissantos84 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 22, 2012, 15:18 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on May 22, 2012, 15:00

A slightly older interview (pre-IPO talk) with Jonathan Klein. http://www.stockphototalk.com/phototalk/2012/03/jonathan-klein-on-getty-images-and-crowdsourcing.html

thanks for sharing!

I wonder why JK says how many tons of millions GI have done in the past 17 years but hey they keep 85% (of indies), what a great way to run a business instead of looking for more buyers, they do know how to run a business and we contributors are doing a heck of a job filling their pockets

another cool thing is how he said that clients want content for free but they cannot do that, hell they cannot or they would be so poor

xst · « **Reply #12 on:** May 22, 2012, 15:22 »

KKR - is the one that buying 50% of fotolia.

If they concentrate IS and Fotolia in one business, taking the worst if both - it will be perfect abomination

bunhill · « **Reply #13 on:** May 22, 2012, 15:27 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 22, 2012, 13:59

Quote from: rubyroo on May 22, 2012, 13:56
Blimey... is it IPO season or something?

Must be. Facebook started it and that's going really well. Not.

It went well for Facebook. They (the company) got their money.

And you could say that the banks got the price right even though it has subsequently dropped. The argument being that if the stock had ended massively up on the day - then Facebook could have got more for it.

lagereek · « **Reply #14 on:** May 22, 2012, 15:34 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 22, 2012, 13:59

Quote from: rubyroo on May 22, 2012, 13:56
Blimey... is it IPO season or something?

Must be. Facebook started it and that's going really well. Not.

Yep! Bono of U2, invested early and earnt himself 1 billion dollars.

lisafx · « **Reply #15 on:** May 22, 2012, 15:43 »

Quote from: xst on May 22, 2012, 15:22

KKR - is the one that buying 50% of fotolia.

Oh wow. If the same company buys Getty and Fotolia, we might be looking at a huge monopoly. Would it be in conflict with antitrust laws, like the Verizon - T-Mobile deal that the government stopped?

michaeldb · « **Reply #16 on:** May 22, 2012, 17:43 »

I guess only we microstockers could see:
-big investors wanting to invest in microstock
-big investment banks eager do IPOs for microstock companies
and think it is a bad sign for microstock.

We all worry about the future of our business and think about having alternative sources of income. I know I do. So maybe it is a good thing to see that some professional financiers are optimistic about the future of microstock (even if we don't necessarily trust those guys).

luissantos84 · « **Reply #17 on:** May 22, 2012, 17:56 »

Quote from: michaeldb on May 22, 2012, 17:43

We all worry about the future of our business and think about having alternative sources of income. I know I do. So maybe it is a good thing to see that some professional financiers are optimistic about the future of microstock (even if we don't necessarily trust those guys).

there is plenty to cut... IS set the bar quite high, actually low

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #18 on:** May 22, 2012, 19:01 »

Aahhh the old "pump and dump". The problem is getty ripped of Bruce with a low ball price which was off by a billion or so and then turned around and ripped off H&F with an over pricing of getty. Now istock has pumped up its profits but sales are slumping. Only an idiot would not see the trend. And this trend is not your friend. If they do an ipo they have to reveal all the financial dirty laundry which would be interesting.

gostwyck · « **Reply #19 on:** May 22, 2012, 19:12 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on May 22, 2012, 19:01

Aahhh the old "pump and dump". The problem is getty ripped of Bruce with a low ball price which was off by a billion or so and then turned around and ripped off H&F with an over pricing of getty. Now istock has pumped up its profits but sales are slumping. Only an idiot would not see the trend. And this trend is not your friend. If they do an ipo they have to reveal all the financial dirty laundry which would be interesting.

I agree! Looking forward to it.

KarenH · « **Reply #20 on:** May 22, 2012, 19:20 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on May 22, 2012, 19:01

Aahhh the old "pump and dump". The problem is getty ripped of Bruce with a low ball price which was off by a billion or so and then turned around and ripped off H&F with an over pricing of getty. Now istock has pumped up its profits but sales are slumping. Only an idiot would not see the trend. And this trend is not your friend. If they do an ipo they have to reveal all the financial dirty laundry which would be interesting.

I'd like to see that. It would be interesting to see how many of the past theories were actually correct.

Sadstock · « **Reply #21 on:** May 22, 2012, 21:13 »

This story just does not add up for me.

Who is going to shell out a whole lot of cash for Getty and its debt? KKR? Private equity firm selling to another private equity firm for what purpose? To consolidate FT and Getty?!? That's why KKR way overpaid for FT, so they could overpay for Getty too? Does KKR have that much better insight into the microstock business to figure out how to make that much more money then H&F could?

An IPO? Investors will be lining up to buy a company with a crappy balance sheet? So they could pay down some of the debt from the IPO but really how much could they get from an IPO? Investors are going to look at what Getty was before H&F purchased them and what they are now, and say not much difference other then more debt and a weak economy.

The timing on this rumor is suspicious to me on the heels of the SS and FT announcements. What I wonder is if H&F/Getty are spreading this rumor, trying to muddy the waters in the microstock market. Maybe hoping to make it more expensive for KKR/FT to buy up other micros or to depress the value of a SS IPO? Should I take off the tinfoil hat now?

stormchaser · « **Reply #22 on:** May 23, 2012, 00:29 »

The KKR move is puzzling - a firm spearheaded the largest leveraged buyout in the the energy sector this year and that has a stock that has flatlined at about 12 bucks for the past 2 years. The only thing that makes sense here is debt financing, but why would TA Associates, who actually owns FO need debt financing? There is some more leveraging going on, so look for the face of micro to shift once again, and probably soon.

lagereek · « **Reply #23 on:** May 23, 2012, 01:58 »

Quote from: cthoman on May 22, 2012, 14:10

Seems like a good time to start a stock agency and wait for these agencies to tear themselves apart.

Absoloutely! now or never! or, are this manipulated actions behind the scenes?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #24 on:** May 23, 2012, 03:44 »

Quote from: KarenH on May 22, 2012, 19:20

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on May 22, 2012, 19:01
Aahhh the old "pump and dump". The problem is getty ripped of Bruce with a low ball price which was off by a billion or so and then turned around and ripped off H&F with an over pricing of getty. Now istock has pumped up its profits but sales are slumping. Only an idiot would not see the trend. And this trend is not your friend. If they do an ipo they have to reveal all the financial dirty laundry which would be interesting.

I'd like to see that. It would be interesting to see how many of the past theories were actually correct.

Yes. It is interesting (if hard to believe from our perspective) that they appear to have got a valuation that is 60% more than they paid for Getty.
Perhaps they have been very successful in monetising dead content via TS and in pushing buyers into higher price brackets and away from contributror content to the wholly owned stuff. They certainly seemed to be deliberately trying to sabotage iS by using it as a portal to Getty and TS.
TS alone is probably worth as much as Fotolia, and TS is a new creation since the takeover, so all that would be added value. I make almost half as much there as I make on iS and double what I used to get from Fotolia. A huge part of the content there is stuff that they already own.

michealo · « **Reply #25 on:** May 23, 2012, 04:09 »

Quote from: Sadstock on May 22, 2012, 21:13

This story just does not add up for me.

Who is going to shell out a whole lot of cash for Getty and its debt? KKR? Private equity firm selling to another private equity firm for what purpose? To consolidate FT and Getty?!? That's why KKR way overpaid for FT, so they could overpay for Getty too? Does KKR have that much better insight into the microstock business to figure out how to make that much more money then H&F could?

An IPO? Investors will be lining up to buy a company with a crappy balance sheet? So they could pay down some of the debt from the IPO but really how much could they get from an IPO? Investors are going to look at what Getty was before H&F purchased them and what they are now, and say not much difference other then more debt and a weak economy.

The timing on this rumor is suspicious to me on the heels of the SS and FT announcements. What I wonder is if H&F/Getty are spreading this rumor, trying to muddy the waters in the microstock market. Maybe hoping to make it more expensive for KKR/FT to buy up other micros or to depress the value of a SS IPO? Should I take off the tinfoil hat now?

Well I'm pretty sure that Bill Gates and or his investment vehicle will have a look. He already owns Corbis, has the cash and the worlds best investor as a close friend....

bunhill · « **Reply #26 on:** May 23, 2012, 04:22 »

Did Corbis ever make any money yet ? For years it was run at a loss IIRC.

lagereek · « **Reply #27 on:** May 23, 2012, 06:26 »

Quote from: bhr on May 23, 2012, 04:22

Did Corbis ever make any money yet ? For years it was run at a loss IIRC.

Nah, nothing to shout about, very, very sloooooooooooooooow agency. God only knows why Mr Gates got that one in the first place?

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #28 on:** May 23, 2012, 07:49 »

Quote from: lagereek on May 23, 2012, 06:26

Quote from: bhr on May 23, 2012, 04:22
Did Corbis ever make any money yet ? For years it was run at a loss IIRC.

Nah, nothing to shout about, very, very sloooooooooooooooow agency. God only knows why Mr Gates got that one in the first place?

He thought that the world was going to be awash with video screens showing soothing slide shows of pretty pictures and that, therefore, there would be a huge demand for images to meet that market. It didn't work out the way he expected.

michealo · « **Reply #29 on:** May 23, 2012, 08:08 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 23, 2012, 07:49

Quote from: lagereek on May 23, 2012, 06:26
Quote from: bhr on May 23, 2012, 04:22
Did Corbis ever make any money yet ? For years it was run at a loss IIRC.

Nah, nothing to shout about, very, very sloooooooooooooooow agency. God only knows why Mr Gates got that one in the first place?

He thought that the world was going to be awash with video screens showing soothing slide shows of pretty pictures and that, therefore, there would be a huge demand for images to meet that market. It didn't work out the way he expected.

As it's a private company revenue or profitability is not disclosed but with a collection of over 100 million images many from important archives it's not hard to imagine it besting SS $6 a year revenue per image

even at this level it's likely to have a turnover of $600 million ...

gostwyck · « **Reply #30 on:** May 23, 2012, 08:39 »

Quote from: michealo on May 23, 2012, 08:08

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 23, 2012, 07:49
Quote from: lagereek on May 23, 2012, 06:26
Quote from: bhr on May 23, 2012, 04:22
Did Corbis ever make any money yet ? For years it was run at a loss IIRC.

Nah, nothing to shout about, very, very sloooooooooooooooow agency. God only knows why Mr Gates got that one in the first place?

He thought that the world was going to be awash with video screens showing soothing slide shows of pretty pictures and that, therefore, there would be a huge demand for images to meet that market. It didn't work out the way he expected.

As it's a private company revenue or profitability is not disclosed but with a collection of over 100 million images many from important archives it's not hard to imagine it besting SS $6 a year revenue per image

even at this level it's likely to have a turnover of $600 million ...

You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity". I'd rather own a chunk of a profit-making SS than a loss-making Corbis.

Btw SS actually generates $8 per image year, not $6. The only information I can find about Corbis is from 2007 in which they were generating $251M from 100M images ... so that's only $2.51 per image year.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm

michealo · « **Reply #31 on:** May 23, 2012, 09:00 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 23, 2012, 08:39

You know what they say ... "Turnover is vanity, profit is sanity". I'd rather own a chunk of a profit-making SS than a loss-making Corbis.

Btw SS actually generates $8 per image year, not $6. The only information I can find about Corbis is from 2007 in which they were generating $251M from 100M images ... so that's only $2.51 per image year.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/04/01/8403372/index.htm

As I mentioned neither profit or revenue is disclosed as they are not a public company

And the SS figure I quote is revenue of 120 m / images of 17.4 million which is about 6.90 (these values are from their prospectus)

I took $6 to be conservative about the revenue Corbis might potentially generate.

SS had revenue of $30 million in 2007, if Corbis increased at the same rate from the figures you quote it would have revenue of a $1 billion now.

gostwyck · « **Reply #32 on:** May 23, 2012, 09:12 »

Quote from: michealo on May 23, 2012, 09:00

As I mentioned neither profit or revenue is disclosed as they are not a public company

And the SS figure I quote is revenue of 120 m / images of 17.4 million which is about 6.90 (these values are from their prospectus)

I took $6 to be conservative about the revenue Corbis might potentially generate.

SS had revenue of $30 million in 2007, if Corbis increased at the same rate from the figures you quote it would have revenue of a $1 billion now.

SS finished 2011 with 17.4M images but the average, over the entire year that the revenue was being generated, was 15M images __ so $8 per image year.

Why would Corbis have grown since 2007? Getty was shrinking and issuing profit warnings which was why they had to sell out cheap. Microstock's growth was at considerable cost to the traditional agencies.

lagereek · « **Reply #33 on:** May 23, 2012, 09:54 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 23, 2012, 09:12

Quote from: michealo on May 23, 2012, 09:00
As I mentioned neither profit or revenue is disclosed as they are not a public company

And the SS figure I quote is revenue of 120 m / images of 17.4 million which is about 6.90 (these values are from their prospectus)

I took $6 to be conservative about the revenue Corbis might potentially generate.

SS had revenue of $30 million in 2007, if Corbis increased at the same rate from the figures you quote it would have revenue of a $1 billion now.

SS finished 2011 with 17.4M images but the average, over the entire year that the revenue was being generated, was 15M images __ so $8 per image year.

Why would Corbis have grown since 2007? Getty was shrinking and issuing profit warnings which was why they had to sell out cheap. Microstock's growth was at considerable cost to the traditional agencies.

At one time, yes, considerable cost to the trad-RM agencies, however I think they have recouperated quite a bit, basically because of all famous f##k-ups by the micros. Serious buyers dont seem to trust them anymore.
Myself and many, many collegues withing the RM, are having a really good time. In fact last year was my best year ever (20 years), for RM sales and good sales.

To be afterwise is no good, I know, but I actually told many here to invest much more in the RM sector, well, obviously I got laughed and flamed. Well?

michealo · « **Reply #34 on:** May 23, 2012, 09:57 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 23, 2012, 09:12

Quote from: michealo on May 23, 2012, 09:00
As I mentioned neither profit or revenue is disclosed as they are not a public company

And the SS figure I quote is revenue of 120 m / images of 17.4 million which is about 6.90 (these values are from their prospectus)

I took $6 to be conservative about the revenue Corbis might potentially generate.

SS had revenue of $30 million in 2007, if Corbis increased at the same rate from the figures you quote it would have revenue of a $1 billion now.

SS finished 2011 with 17.4M images but the average, over the entire year that the revenue was being generated, was 15M images __ so $8 per image year.

Why would Corbis have grown since 2007? Getty was shrinking and issuing profit warnings which was why they had to sell out cheap. Microstock's growth was at considerable cost to the traditional agencies.

You assume many things to make your argument fit, such as contributions and sales being evenly distributed throughout the year and it ignores the fact the the revenue is front loaded as the bulk of these are sales of subscription packages, which if properly accounted for would be deferred revenue in proportion to the amount of the package used. For example annual subscriptions sold in the last month of the calendar year should only recognise 1/12 of the revenue in that financial year, etc

The stock image market has still grown from 2007 in $ terms and it hasn't all gone to micros the market is estimated to be $5 billion (quoted in the SS report)

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #35 on:** May 23, 2012, 09:58 »

Quote from: michealo on May 23, 2012, 09:00

Quote from: gostwyck on May 23, 2012, 08:39

As I mentioned neither profit or revenue is disclosed as they are not a public company

And the SS figure I quote is revenue of 120 m / images of 17.4 million which is about 6.90 (these values are from their prospectus)

I took $6 to be conservative about the revenue Corbis might potentially generate.

SS had revenue of $30 million in 2007, if Corbis increased at the same rate from the figures you quote it would have revenue of a $1 billion now.

What makes no sense to me is the evaluations of these image peddlers. In 2006 Bruce looks at revenue rising like a rocket and then settles on a $50 million sells price. Revenue in 2006 is $23 million, 2007 is $73 million, 2008 is $150 million. Who uses a 2 times multiple for a company valuation when growth is off the charts. I wish I could have handled the negotiations for him. I would have told Getty I would sell for 1 billion. I would have done it for a 10% commission. If they had said no in two years at $200 million revenues that would have been easy to get.

Now at cnbc.com, hf is saying they expect to sell for $4 billion. That is rich considering they paid $2.4 billion back in 2008 during the peak right before the financial crisis. So, with SS taking a lot of market share in micro and getty using istock to sell macro, which hurts its macro sales, everything is rosy. I guess the entertainment, sports, and editorial business is so profitable that you can loose market share in micro/macro and with 4 years double your value in the worst economy since the jimmy carter era. Sweet!!!!! Hey wait 4 more years and sell for $8 bil. It's easy to double your money around here.

michealo · « **Reply #36 on:** May 23, 2012, 10:09 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on May 23, 2012, 09:58

Quote from: michealo on May 23, 2012, 09:00
Quote from: gostwyck on May 23, 2012, 08:39

As I mentioned neither profit or revenue is disclosed as they are not a public company

And the SS figure I quote is revenue of 120 m / images of 17.4 million which is about 6.90 (these values are from their prospectus)

I took $6 to be conservative about the revenue Corbis might potentially generate.

SS had revenue of $30 million in 2007, if Corbis increased at the same rate from the figures you quote it would have revenue of a $1 billion now.

What makes no sense to me is the evaluations of these image peddlers. In 2006 Bruce looks at revenue rising like a rocket and then settles on a $50 million sells price. Revenue in 2006 is $23 million, 2007 is $73 million, 2008 is $150 million. Who uses a 2 times multiple for a company valuation when growth is off the charts. I wish I could have handled the negotiations for him. I would have told Getty I would sell for 1 billion. I would have done it for a 10% commission. If they had said no in two years at $200 million revenues that would have been easy to get.

Now at cnbc.com, hf is saying they expect to sell for $4 billion. That is rich considering they paid $2.4 billion back in 2008 during the peak right before the financial crisis. So, with SS taking a lot of market share in micro and getty using istock to sell macro, which hurts its macro sales, everything is rosy. I guess the entertainment, sports, and editorial business is so profitable that you can loose market share in micro/macro and with 4 years double your value in the worst economy since the jimmy carter era. Sweet!!!!! Hey wait 4 more years and sell for $8 bil. It's easy to double your money around here.

IS may have had the revenues but that doesn't imply that they had appropriate levels of profitability to justify a higher valuation

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #37 on:** May 23, 2012, 10:24 »

My My ... this place is full of financial genius. If I knew that much about finance then doubt that I would be grovelling for pennies in microstock.

antistock · « **Reply #38 on:** May 23, 2012, 12:34 »

where's the problem if getty goes public ?

it's the undisputed market leader and monopolist and it's making profits and they will certainly pay dividends as well, so unless they price the stock too high like FB did i can't see whats wrong with it .. however it goes they will scr-ew photographers just as bad as before.

instead SS going public is a much more risky operation and i would stay away from that.
they just want to cash in and dump their stock on an IPO and see what sticks.
good, and it could also be a good idea, but no thanks, at least with Getty you know what you get and their management is well known and with a proven track record, SS as far as we know can pretty much be a fly by night operation despite their market leadership in micros.

cathyslife · « **Reply #39 on:** May 23, 2012, 12:37 »

Quote from: antistock on May 23, 2012, 12:34

where's the problem if getty goes public ?

it's the undisputed market leader and monopolist and it's making profits and they will certainly pay dividends as well, so unless they price the stock too high like FB did i can't see whats wrong with it .. however it goes they will scr-ew photographers just as bad as before.

instead SS going public is a much more risky operation and i would stay away from that.
they just want to cash in and dump their stock on an IPO and see what sticks.
good, and it could also be a good idea, but no thanks, at least with Getty you know what you get and their management is well known and with a proven track record, SS as far as we know can pretty much be a fly by night operation despite their market leadership in micros.

And see I believe exactly the opposite that you do. I'd trust SS way more than Getty. Based on my past experiences here in microstock, anyway.

stockmarketer · « **Reply #40 on:** May 23, 2012, 12:44 »

Quote from: Sadstock on May 22, 2012, 21:13

Who is going to shell out a whole lot of cash for Getty and its debt? KKR? Private equity firm selling to another private equity firm for what purpose? To consolidate FT and Getty?!? That's why KKR way overpaid for FT, so they could overpay for Getty too? Does KKR have that much better insight into the microstock business to figure out how to make that much more money then H&F could?

One result of consolidating ownership of ISP and SS under a single company would be to reduce downward price pressure in the market and allow both to actually increase prices. Which could be good for us, assuming the new management doesn't also try to boost profits by trimming contributor commissions.

cthoman · « **Reply #41 on:** May 23, 2012, 13:03 »

Quote from: stockmarketer on May 23, 2012, 12:44

One result of consolidating ownership of ISP and SS under a single company would be to reduce downward price pressure in the market and allow both to actually increase prices. Which could be good for us, assuming the new management doesn't also try to boost profits by trimming contributor commissions.

I think that would be bad. Like Ghostbusters "crossing the streams" bad.

gostwyck · « **Reply #42 on:** May 23, 2012, 13:03 »

Quote from: antistock on May 23, 2012, 12:34

where's the problem if getty goes public ?

it's the undisputed market leader and monopolist and it's making profits and they will certainly pay dividends as well, so unless they price the stock too high like FB did i can't see whats wrong with it .. however it goes they will scr-ew photographers just as bad as before.

instead SS going public is a much more risky operation and i would stay away from that.
they just want to cash in and dump their stock on an IPO and see what sticks.
good, and it could also be a good idea, but no thanks, at least with Getty you know what you get and their management is well known and with a proven track record, SS as far as we know can pretty much be a fly by night operation despite their market leadership in micros.

Huh? You mean Getty's track record of screwing the business when it was last public ... or their recent track record with Istock? I wouldn't touch Getty stock with the proverbial bargepole.

In contrast SS/Oringer has an unblemished track record of growth, reliability, innovation and trust.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #43 on:** May 23, 2012, 13:25 »

It puts me in mind of a secondary school maths problem...

If a Facebook IPO is worth $100bn on Monday and $75bn on Friday.
And if a Getty IPO is worth $4bn on Monday
.... how much will Getty be worth by Friday?

bunhill · « **Reply #44 on:** May 23, 2012, 13:51 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 23, 2012, 13:03

You mean Getty's track record of screwing the business when it was last public ... or their recent track record with Istock? I wouldn't touch Getty stock with the proverbial bargepole.

Well then, with respect (you are one of the best posters), you are going with your heart rather than investing by rules. In both cases it depends upon the numbers and, specifically, ultimately the price. Let's not forget that Getty is a portfolio of brands across various image sectors and has revenues of almost $1bn in a market which is said to be currently worth $3bn. SS is a great company which everyone admires - but it has revenues of only appx $100m and is only represented in one sector of the market. These are two great companies.

The problem which Getty previously faced was that the stock had risen on the back of unrealistic sentiment in a bubble market.

Quote from: gostwyck on May 23, 2012, 13:03

In contrast SS/Oringer has an unblemished track record of growth

Again it is down to the price. Those growth numbers are going to need some rationalisation. because on the face of it they have been spending money buying market share whilst earnings have barely increased. Their customers are costing them money. Potential investors are going to need to know that these revenues can be sustained when that degree of spending is reduced. Because ultimately it is about earnings and not revenues.

^ this is comment and a different perspective not bait

Freedom · « **Reply #45 on:** May 23, 2012, 14:13 »

LOL, well, buy stocks from both SS and Getty, you solve the problem by diversifying your investment. If they screw the photographers, you win, because you are a shareholder; if the companies perform well, you get the encore by being both a shareholder and content holder. Isn't that simple?

bunhill · « **Reply #46 on:** May 23, 2012, 14:27 »

me, I'm holding out for the Pinterest IPO

antistock · « **Reply #47 on:** May 23, 2012, 23:39 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 23, 2012, 13:25

It puts me in mind of a secondary school maths problem...

If a Facebook IPO is worth $100bn on Monday and $75bn on Friday.
And if a Getty IPO is worth $4bn on Monday
.... how much will Getty be worth by Friday?

it's not so linear and easy.
and i would be surprised if photo companies get much attention after a few months from the IPO.
it all depends on how they manage to grow sales, a substantial increase in every quarter can pretty much jump the share up 10-20% in a single day, a sharp decrease can do the same, see DELL yesterday falling down -18% after reporting slumping sales in laptops and desktops !

you don't need an Aladdin's lamp but if it was so easy to predict stock market we would be all millionaires now.

antistock · « **Reply #48 on:** May 23, 2012, 23:41 »

Quote from: bhr on May 23, 2012, 14:27

me, I'm holding out for the Pinterest IPO

they're already talking about Pinterest having a potential market cap of 1 billion so an IPO is definetely on the radar maybe next year.
said that, i'm afraid their biz model is even more unstable and less profitable than FB so only a fool would buy PNTR shares !

on the other side early investors could make a killing, like the ones with FB did.

antistock · « **Reply #49 on:** May 23, 2012, 23:45 »

Quote from: gostwyck on May 23, 2012, 13:03

Quote from: antistock on May 23, 2012, 12:34
where's the problem if getty goes public ?

it's the undisputed market leader and monopolist and it's making profits and they will certainly pay dividends as well, so unless they price the stock too high like FB did i can't see whats wrong with it .. however it goes they will scr-ew photographers just as bad as before.

instead SS going public is a much more risky operation and i would stay away from that.
they just want to cash in and dump their stock on an IPO and see what sticks.
good, and it could also be a good idea, but no thanks, at least with Getty you know what you get and their management is well known and with a proven track record, SS as far as we know can pretty much be a fly by night operation despite their market leadership in micros.

Huh? You mean Getty's track record of screwing the business when it was last public ... or their recent track record with Istock? I wouldn't touch Getty stock with the proverbial bargepole.

In contrast SS/Oringer has an unblemished track record of growth, reliability, innovation and trust.

as long as we can't read their S-1 filing it could be all rubbish, everything is possible.

suffice to say if a company goes public is usually to enrich their own investors, not the traders !
and other times it's an outright scam, like with FB or Groupon.

getty is obviously trying to embellish their financial situation as much as they can, and so is SS, but getty knows what's going on, SS is still a young and therefore yet-to-become-trusted company.

i mean, if in the stock industry even getty can't make profits, who will ??

antistock · « **Reply #50 on:** May 24, 2012, 00:22 »

Quote from: cclapper on May 23, 2012, 12:37

And see I believe exactly the opposite that you do. I'd trust SS way more than Getty. Based on my past experiences here in microstock, anyway.

of course as a photographer i trust SS 100 times more than the suits at Getty, but once it's a public stock they're forced to produce continous growth and maximize profits, in ANY way, or face their stock value becoming quickly worthless.

another option is the actual owners of SS just want to do a rich sell-out and retire, who knows, with the data in their hands they know much better than me and you where the microstock industry is actually heading, for instance growing sales and profits can mask the unsustainability of the whole biz in the long term but you need big amounts of real data to see this trend, it's impossible for us to judge.

from this scenario, it's unthinkable SS will keep its actual fair treatment of photographers, at the very least they will bring down royalties on par with Istock.

sharpshot · « **Reply #51 on:** May 24, 2012, 01:31 »

Hopefully SS has seen that cutting royalties makes microstock unsustainable for lots of contributors. It makes a lot of us slow down or stop our production and find other ways to make money. Did it make Getty more profitable? I remember their share price falling as they cut commissions. I think istock had a chance to become so big that their competitors would of been almost insignificant. All they had to do was raise commission percentages, so that going exclusive was the most profitable option for all of us. They did the opposite and now Shutterstock looks like a real problem for them.

Google and Apple pay their app developers 70% commission. It might not be the same as stock images but I think they understand that their business is much stronger with motivated people working for them. The stock sites need more high quality images and I don't see how they will get that in the future if they lose all the professionals and only keep the hobbyists.

gostwyck · « **Reply #52 on:** May 24, 2012, 03:40 »

Quote from: sharpshot on May 24, 2012, 01:31

Hopefully SS has seen that cutting royalties makes microstock unsustainable for lots of contributors. It makes a lot of us slow down or stop our production and find other ways to make money. Did it make Getty more profitable? I remember their share price falling as they cut commissions. I think istock had a chance to become so big that their competitors would of been almost insignificant. All they had to do was raise commission percentages, so that going exclusive was the most profitable option for all of us. They did the opposite and now Shutterstock looks like a real problem for them.

Google and Apple pay their app developers 70% commission. It might not be the same as stock images but I think they understand that their business is much stronger with motivated people working for them. The stock sites need more high quality images and I don't see how they will get that in the future if they lose all the professionals and only keep the hobbyists.

Exactly. SS have also hugely increased their R&D budget which is an obvious indicator that the long-term interests of the business are at the forefront of the management's considerations. If you are looking to make a quick buck and pretty the books up you don't do stuff like that.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #53 on:** May 24, 2012, 04:03 »

Quote from: antistock on May 23, 2012, 23:39

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on May 23, 2012, 13:25
It puts me in mind of a secondary school maths problem...

If a Facebook IPO is worth $100bn on Monday and $75bn on Friday.
And if a Getty IPO is worth $4bn on Monday
.... how much will Getty be worth by Friday?

it's not so linear and easy.
and i would be surprised if photo companies get much attention after a few months from the IPO.
it all depends on how they manage to grow sales, a substantial increase in every quarter can pretty much jump the share up 10-20% in a single day, a sharp decrease can do the same, see DELL yesterday falling down -18% after reporting slumping sales in laptops and desktops !

you don't need an Aladdin's lamp but if it was so easy to predict stock market we would be all millionaires now.

It was a joke, actually. But the underlying point was that you can't trust the valuation.

In addition, of course, a valuation of "up to" $4bn would not even conflict with a valuation of 10c. I have a house that is definitely worth "up to" £5 trillion, it's just unfortunate that if I sold it the bidding would probably stop at about £90,000.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: iStock IPO (or actually Getty) (Read 17489 times)

rubyroo

rubyroo

rinderart

lagereek

lisafx

lagereek

michealo

lagereek

michealo

michealo

lagereek

michealo

michealo

WarrenPrice

antistock

antistock

antistock

antistock

antistock

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors