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....

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?

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

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.

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?

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. 

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.   

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 ??