MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Ron on September 30, 2013, 05:18
-
Tickstock posted a comment with some new about Mr. Oringer selling his majority in Shutterstock.
http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/sstk-to-sell-3m-more-shares/msg346974/#msg346974 (http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/sstk-to-sell-3m-more-shares/msg346974/#msg346974)
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/weekly-ceo-sells-highlight-shutterstock-inc-autodesk-inc-cm281052 (http://www.nasdaq.com/article/weekly-ceo-sells-highlight-shutterstock-inc-autodesk-inc-cm281052)
Shutterstock Inc. ( SSTK ): CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer Sold 2,530,000 Shares
CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer sold 2,530,000 shares of SSTK stock on 09/25/2013 at the average price of 57.3.
From what I understand he pocketed 144,969,000$ and that money is not going into the company. So his share in SS dropped from 55% to 10% and he is no longer calling the shots at Shutterstock.
Am I correct in thinking that?
-
I don't think that's correct because I read that he was a paper billionaire and selling that percentage would of made much more money. I hope he's manged to pocket lots of cash and keep control of the company. I also hope someone can explain how that happened because this sort of business is a mystery to me. There's 3 million more shares, he sells 2,530,000 and makes lots of money. The share price rockets. I don't get it but hopefully someone here can explain how that works.
-
I was thinking about that too. He had a billion, so that cash out is only 14%.
But I remember Joe saying he had 55% shares. Yahoo is saying he is 10% owner.
Maybe Joe or Paul can chime in, they know these things.
-
According to people in the know (a hell of lot more than us) the institution of 'shareholder' have long become meaningless, so much so that it should be 'renamed' or even abolished. Shareholders have little to no influence on how the company works, it's controlled by the technostructure and the CEO(s). Watch "age of uncertainty", very well explained and presented with examples... and it explained to me perfectly the economic nonsense I see day to day.
-
According to this (http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/institutional-holdings) the number of outstanding shares is 35 million.
And according to this (http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/oringer-jonathan-891100) Mr. Oringer still holds close to 16 million, which is not a majority anymore (but he is still the biggest shareholder).
-
According to this ([url]http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/institutional-holdings[/url]) the number of outstanding shares is 35 million.
And according to this ([url]http://www.nasdaq.com/quotes/insiders/oringer-jonathan-891100[/url]) Mr. Oringer still holds close to 16 million, which is not a majority anymore (but he is still the biggest shareholder).
Nice one, now I can sleep better. Thank you.
-
But if he doesn't hold the majority of shares, can't someone else buy them and remove him as CEO? Just trying to bring back the insomnia :)
-
But if he doesn't hold the majority of shares, can't someone else buy them and remove him as CEO? Just trying to bring back the insomnia :)
I guess thats possible, someone just need to buy up 17 million shares, at 72 dollar.
-
1.2 Billion dollars. Would it be possible for Getty and partners to now get a foot in the door??
-
1.2 Billion dollars. Would it be possible for Getty and partners to now get a foot in the door??
Interesting point.
-
1.2 Billion dollars. Would it be possible for Getty and partners to now get a foot in the door??
Only a finger…
-
1.2 Billion dollars. Would it be possible for Getty and partners to now get a foot in the door??
Only a finger…
I hope so...
-
when the founder starts selling his own stock it's usually not a good sign but it could just be an agreement with a shareholder behind the scenes or the usual smoke & mirrors.
we will see.
-
I don't think there is even a chance to buy all those shares, there must be a much smaller limit unless you have a very big family and buy a few per head ;D
-
People will usually sell for the right price and it would explain why it's going up so strongly. Probably just coincidence but I've learned to expect the unexpected.
-
i don't think this will impact SS in the long term, on the other side i don't think there's any reason for their market value to increase a lot and maybe Oringer is very aware that SS has peaked and it can't keep growing forever, that's why he's selling now.
-
Shutterstock Inc. ( SSTK ): CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer Sold 2,530,000 Shares
CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer sold 2,530,000 shares of SSTK stock on 09/25/2013 at the average price of 57.3.
From what I understand he pocketed 144,969,000$ and that money is not going into the company. So his share in SS dropped from 55% to 10% and he is no longer calling the shots at Shutterstock.
He sold 2.5 million shares. Shutterstock has a market capitalization of $2.53 billion at a share price of $72.87 according to the article which would mean they have 34.7 million shares outstanding. 2.5 million shares would represent about 7.2% of the company.
In a recent article in Forbes it was stated Oringer owns 55% of the shares, therefore his share would now have dropped to 48%.
The "10% owner" piece in the information is probably something conected to stock market laws - people holding a certain share in a company have more obligations to report about their share development. It just means that Oringer is an owner holding "more than 10% of the company".
That's how I read this at least.
-
That makes sense Michael, thank you.
Can´t blame him for cashing in. After all the years of building it - well done!
-
But if he doesn't hold the majority of shares, can't someone else buy them and remove him as CEO? Just trying to bring back the insomnia :)
Theoretically yes. But in reality they would need to buy almost all other shares - which means they would have to convince all other existing shareholders and would have to pay a huge premium.
With Oringer still holding above 45% that is very unlikely to happen.
-
... maybe Oringer is very aware that SS has peaked and it can't keep growing forever, that's why he's selling now.
A traditional, but less polite term for this is "Pump and Dump".
-
But if he doesn't hold the majority of shares, can't someone else buy them and remove him as CEO? Just trying to bring back the insomnia :)
Theoretically yes. But in reality they would need to buy almost all other shares - which means they would have to convince all other existing shareholders and would have to pay a huge premium.
With Oringer still holding above 45% that is very unlikely to happen.
There's still a risk though and the way Getty has been bought twice, I'm finding it hard to understand why he would risk losing SS when he could of sold some shares, made millions and kept 51%?
-
But if he doesn't hold the majority of shares, can't someone else buy them and remove him as CEO? Just trying to bring back the insomnia :)
Theoretically yes. But in reality they would need to buy almost all other shares - which means they would have to convince all other existing shareholders and would have to pay a huge premium.
With Oringer still holding above 45% that is very unlikely to happen.
There's still a risk though and the way Getty has been bought twice, I'm finding it hard to understand why he would risk losing SS when he could of sold some shares, made millions and kept 51%?
Maybe he is just taking out part of the money he has in the company to hedge his position. He may be a billionaire by the current share price of Shutterstock, but that's paper money. Unless Shutterstock pays out part of their earnings as dividend (I don't know, haven't really followed the stock) he can't buy anything with his billion.
So now he has the opportunity to sell a (small) part of his total shares and have 140+ million in the bank - real cash, not "just" shares.
If the stock moves further up - he still has close to 16 million of it.
If it goes down - with 140 million in the bank, he still will not have to ask for social welfare.
Sounds like a wise decision to me.
-
Tickstock posted a comment with some new about Mr. Oringer selling his majority in Shutterstock.
[url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/sstk-to-sell-3m-more-shares/msg346974/#msg346974[/url] ([url]http://www.microstockgroup.com/shutterstock-com/sstk-to-sell-3m-more-shares/msg346974/#msg346974[/url])
[url]http://www.nasdaq.com/article/weekly-ceo-sells-highlight-shutterstock-inc-autodesk-inc-cm281052[/url] ([url]http://www.nasdaq.com/article/weekly-ceo-sells-highlight-shutterstock-inc-autodesk-inc-cm281052[/url])
Shutterstock Inc. ( SSTK ): CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer Sold 2,530,000 Shares
CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer sold 2,530,000 shares of SSTK stock on 09/25/2013 at the average price of 57.3.
From what I understand he pocketed 144,969,000$ and that money is not going into the company. So his share in SS dropped from 55% to 10% and he is no longer calling the shots at Shutterstock.
Am I correct in thinking that?
According the this article he owned 18.5 million shares and now owns 15,970,000 shares out of 33,695,653 Shares Outstanding so we can add another 1 million to that number for 34,695,653 Shares Outstanding
http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/SSTK--Shares_Outstanding (http://www.macroaxis.com/invest/ratio/SSTK--Shares_Outstanding)
If those numbers are current that would mean he now owns 46% of the co. Personally I think that he gave up control when he made the choice to surround himself with the wall street crowd.
Looks like he sold -13.67% of his holdings
Snip
The 39-year-old owns about 55% of Shutterstock. His 18.5 million shares were valued at $1 billion earlier this morning.
http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-oringer-is-a-billionaire-2013-6#ixzz2fTX1wbIc (http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-oringer-is-a-billionaire-2013-6#ixzz2fTX1wbIc)
Snip
Outstanding Shares: 33,695,653
http://www.thestreet.com/quote/SSTK.html (http://www.thestreet.com/quote/SSTK.html)
After a bit more research I found what looks to be more accurate Total Outstanding Shares info, therefore I revised the links and #'s
-
SS Rocks!
Thank You Jon!
You ARE the best!
-
Jon please unban Mike, like now!
-
Jon please unban Mike, like now!
I don't think he is banned...but I could be wrong.
-
Jon please unban Mike, like now!
I don't think he is banned...but I could be wrong.
so why the F*** he is here ::)
-
Jon please unban Mike, like now!
I don't think he is banned...but I could be wrong.
so why the F*** he is here ::)
Beats me.
-
Jon please unban Mike, like now!
I don't think he is banned...but I could be wrong.
so why the F*** he is here ::)
Beats me.
He enjoys annoying people by making inane posts which include absurd images. SS will not allow him to do this any longer and recently he found out that he can effectively antagonize contributors here. Expect more spam.
-
But if he doesn't hold the majority of shares, can't someone else buy them and remove him as CEO? Just trying to bring back the insomnia :)
Theoretically yes. But in reality they would need to buy almost all other shares - which means they would have to convince all other existing shareholders and would have to pay a huge premium.
With Oringer still holding above 45% that is very unlikely to happen.
There's still a risk though and the way Getty has been bought twice, I'm finding it hard to understand why he would risk losing SS when he could of sold some shares, made millions and kept 51%?
Maybe he is just taking out part of the money he has in the company to hedge his position. He may be a billionaire by the current share price of Shutterstock, but that's paper money. Unless Shutterstock pays out part of their earnings as dividend (I don't know, haven't really followed the stock) he can't buy anything with his billion.
So now he has the opportunity to sell a (small) part of his total shares and have 140+ million in the bank - real cash, not "just" shares.
If the stock moves further up - he still has close to 16 million of it.
If it goes down - with 140 million in the bank, he still will not have to ask for social welfare.
Sounds like a wise decision to me.
Couldn't he of taken something like 50 million and still kept 51%? I still don't understand it and hope he has somehow cleverly retained control of SS. Having seen what happened to other site owners when they gave up their majority share, I hoped Jon would keep his.
-
But if he doesn't hold the majority of shares, can't someone else buy them and remove him as CEO? Just trying to bring back the insomnia :)
Theoretically yes. But in reality they would need to buy almost all other shares - which means they would have to convince all other existing shareholders and would have to pay a huge premium.
With Oringer still holding above 45% that is very unlikely to happen.
There's still a risk though and the way Getty has been bought twice, I'm finding it hard to understand why he would risk losing SS when he could of sold some shares, made millions and kept 51%?
Maybe he is just taking out part of the money he has in the company to hedge his position. He may be a billionaire by the current share price of Shutterstock, but that's paper money. Unless Shutterstock pays out part of their earnings as dividend (I don't know, haven't really followed the stock) he can't buy anything with his billion.
So now he has the opportunity to sell a (small) part of his total shares and have 140+ million in the bank - real cash, not "just" shares.
If the stock moves further up - he still has close to 16 million of it.
If it goes down - with 140 million in the bank, he still will not have to ask for social welfare.
Sounds like a wise decision to me.
You can buy stuff for shares no problem, especially premium stuff, so you din't have to cash out just buy f.e. luxury house at all.
-
I believe Mr. Oringer know what is doing... he still control 45% of the shares, but the other 55% are so diluted among many investors that is nearly impossible to group all the other share holders to make 51%. Orenger need only 5% +1 to maintain the control, witch is very easy.
-
I believe Mr. Oringer know what is doing... he still control 45% of the shares, but the other 55% are so diluted among many investors that is nearly impossible to group all the other share holders to make 51%. Orenger need only 5% +1 to maintain the control, witch is very easy.
True. He still controls it. His share is les than 50% but he is still the biggest shareholder.
Moreover sales like this from insider are always disclosed. It should have been somewhere. It doesn't specify the date but instead specifies time period in which they can sell. Also it specifies the range of stocks that the insider can sell. Someone would need to find the information maybe their quarterly filing. Probably he sold shares in the lower range and wall street treats it as positive for the company.
-
I still find it astounding that these agencies are "worth" so much when they don't actually own any of the content, just the hardware and operating systems. I wonder how much they would be worth if the internet went down for a month or two or, for some reason all contributors pulled their images (neither of which is likely but not absolutely impossible)
-
A traditional, but less polite term for this is "Pump and Dump".
exactly.
but often there's a gray area that never goes public, we will never really know in detail what's going on behind the scenes and i don't think SS is going to implode anytime soon, as a company it's delivering, it's not a bubble like Facebook or Groupon.
-
I believe Mr. Oringer know what is doing... he still control 45% of the shares, but the other 55% are so diluted among many investors that is nearly impossible to group all the other share holders to make 51%. Orenger need only 5% +1 to maintain the control, witch is very easy.
The nearly impossible seems to happen quite often, especially if the share price falls and someone makes the investors a good offer.
-
I believe Mr. Oringer know what is doing... he still control 45% of the shares, but the other 55% are so diluted among many investors that is nearly impossible to group all the other share holders to make 51%. Orenger need only 5% +1 to maintain the control, witch is very easy.
The nearly impossible seems to happen quite often, especially if the share price falls and someone makes the investors a good offer.
On the other side the stock value of SS (2.2 billion) is way overstated... for a company that produce around 25 million/year NET INCOME.
I hope the agency continue to grow... ( September was only $30 short to become my new BME).
-
On the other side the stock value of SS (2.2 billion) is way overstated... for a company that produce around 25 million/year NET INCOME.
I hope the agency continue to grow... ( September was only $30 short to become my new BME).
same for facebook, their market cap is around 100 times their net income.
-
Haven't read all the post's but think about it a minute?
He is a businessman and anyone in his position understanding thet the Govt was bound and determined to shutdown which would then cause stocks to tank the next morning would sell what they had and make a killing from it then when the stocks are still down in price buy back more and start the game all over.
Sell high buy low.
-
A traditional, but less polite term for this is "Pump and Dump".
exactly.
but often there's a gray area that never goes public, we will never really know in detail what's going on behind the scenes and i don't think SS is going to implode anytime soon, as a company it's delivering, it's not a bubble like Facebook or Groupon.
It's not a Puimp & Dump, it's a real company with real business. But the stock seems way overvalued and there is a point at which perception becomes reality. A major correction is coming, and following that, a lot of investors will be underwater and demanding that management do something to bring the stock price back up. That always spells trouble for employees and suppliers.
-
Haven't read all the post's but think about it a minute?
He is a businessman and anyone in his position understanding thet the Govt was bound and determined to shutdown which would then cause stocks to tank the next morning would sell what they had and make a killing from it then when the stocks are still down in price buy back more and start the game all over.
Sell high buy low.
The stock exchange didnt even react to the news. Everyone was expecting a shutdown, its tradition when it comes to raising the US debt cap.
-
Haven't read all the post's but think about it a minute?
He is a businessman and anyone in his position understanding thet the Govt was bound and determined to shutdown which would then cause stocks to tank the next morning would sell what they had and make a killing from it then when the stocks are still down in price buy back more and start the game all over.
Sell high buy low.
... except that SSTK are up another 2% today.
-
My financial advisor/broker routinely explains to me how the market is fine with government gridlock - because it's stable and predictable. But if they carry this to the point where the government starts to default, that could be bad.
-
historically when the economy goes bad they fix it with a new war.
now being Syria out of question they will push on a new target, maybe Kenya or Yemen ?
-
I heard he's selling because he wants to start a new Citizen News Agency that has global assignments for people using smart phones. Oh wait, that's someone else... :)
The point about distribution of shares can happen in many companies. Yes it's possible for someone to buy all the outstanding shares, but highly unlikely that all the other owners would sell. At that point, Jon still controls the biggest portion and is in control.
This is not in any way a pump and dump, the value is perceived by investors with SS and that's what drives the price. It's not someone (a team) on a forum with the latest hot penny stock, who owns most of it and will dump their shares before the bubble bursts, leaving all the suckers owning worthless stock.
SS is out-preforming expectations. A bunch of old purple haired Grannies like Enron and Worldcom holders, will be grabbing the hottest new thing. That drives the stock value up, more than income or real assets.
And the question about "what if the Internet breaks for a couple of months", is kind of absurd, but also consider, if buyers can't buy, then artists can't remove their images. ???
-
And the question about "what if the Internet breaks for a couple of months", is kind of absurd, but also consider, if buyers can't buy, then artists can't remove their images. ???
Of course we can. Images are stored on a server and all I have to do is call SS and tell them to close my account and remove the images from the server. I could even send them a fax or a letter. You dont need internet to connect to a server.
-
.
-
historically when the economy goes bad they fix it with a new war.
now being Syria out of question they will push on a new target, maybe Kenya or Yemen ?
Historically, you're right, but in the past decade or so our continuous state of war hasn't done diddly for our economy. In fact, it has weakened it because tax money that should be going into infrastructure, education, innovation, etc. is going to keep funding these pointless wars.
-
Historically, you're right, but in the past decade or so our continuous state of war hasn't done diddly for our economy. In fact, it has weakened it because tax money that should be going into infrastructure, education, innovation, etc. is going to keep funding these pointless wars.
they don't necessarily need to start a new war, they can find a good and peaceful deal like they did in the '70s with Saudi Arabia.
in the end it's always a matter of political will and diplomacy, for instance Russia de facto "won" the war in Syria now without shooting a single bullet while also increasing its international prestige.
however, nothing of all this will impact the lifestyle and the buying power of the average americans.
the internal problems of the US economy are related to the ongoing "class war" against the former middle class which is squeezing at an alarming rate and same scenario in Europe with peaks of 30-40% youth unemployment.
in germany they're masking the reality with millions of so called "mini jobs" paid around 500 euro month which is a pittance considering the costs of living there.
in france they've millions of people on "chaummage", in the States they have food stamps and all ...
the Shutdown of the US government is just more smoke and mirrors to impose more evil taxations with the excuse of being under emergency.
in the 90's i was one of those telling everybody that the jobs outsourced to in india and china would NEVER come back in the west but guess what nobody ever listen and they all told me i was fool because we were under the "dot boom" era.
and the (american) company i was working for miserable went down the drain soon after, it's been acquired and merged by a competitor and indeed none of the jobs ever went back to the US or europe and they're all still in china and india.
we can all read very interesting and well researched economic analysis published in several places but again nobody will listen and no one in power will move a finger, the US would rather invade Canada and Mexico than radically change their social politics about health and welfare, they will instead build new prisons and throw you in jail if you go around begging for a job or for money, wait a couple years and you will see.
-
in the States they have food stamps and all ...
Almost 50 million Americans are on what used to be known as food stamps.
JP Morgan’s Food Stamp Empire (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/01/jp-morgan-s-food-stamp-empire.html)
-
Almost 50 million Americans are on what used to be known as food stamps.
that's 20% of the US population.
how many more millions will it will take to make the government rethink its welfare strategy ?
-
historically when the economy goes bad they fix it with a new war.
now being Syria out of question they will push on a new target, maybe Kenya or Yemen ?
No 'fixing', it just takes the morons attention away from problems at home. Also if they really go broke they can just blame it on the war... or in the war things will get so miserable and scary that things like gas price would be below the radar. It works out so great several ways, kids
-
yeah they blame it on the war but first of all on the president, now they will blame Obama as if replacing him with a fresh republican would make any difference.
and finally they will blame it on the americans, they will say americans waste too much, spend too much, do too many debts, consume too much, etc etc
if you're poor jobless and sick you'll be told it's only your own fault because you're a spiness loser and a disgrace.
-
Regarding the Oringer/Shutterstock issue - it's not a big deal. After a certain time period the owner(s)/founders/investors of a company are allowed to sell their shares. And that's what he did, sold a few and made a few dollars to take home. I still stand by my evaluation that the stock is way overvalued, so be wary if you want to jump in.
On the American (and world) economy, yes it's pretty bad. Great radio show on This American Life about the rising trend in disability payments and why: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/490/trends-with-benefits (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/490/trends-with-benefits) You will often hear of lot of jobs but may of the jobs are part-time and contract (temp work). Read an article on Caterpillar and the factories in the US (they just closed the London Ontario plant) and basically you have people working in the plant for the last eight years and they are making $11 an hour :o. And the CEO says "You don't like it? No problem! We'll close the plant and move to another state with a thousand people willing to work for us. Or we'll just go to Mexico." And this is a company making pretty good coin on a D-10 dollar bulldozer. It's scary. Oh and guess what folks? There also coming out with automated (robot) dozers and mine trucks! Why hire people to drive those things anyway?
-
And the CEO says "You don't like it? No problem! We'll close the plant and move to another state with a thousand people willing to work for us. Or we'll just go to Mexico."
well, same with Getty and Istock ... in their eyes photographers are dime a dozen, guess they hope we'll be replaced by hordes of third world suppliers ?
however, unlike factory workers we cannot be easily replace with cheap mexicans or vietnamese, even indians and philippinos aren't invading the stock industry and they're the only ones in asia with good enough spoken/written english to keyword and all.
why they're not joining stock in droves ? i don't know but so far that's the way it is.
as far as i see only western expats here are into stock, reportage, newswire agencies, etc
as for america, they will certainly devalue the US dollar to stay afloat, little by little to avoid troubles, but for the local workers it's gonna be bad, very bad, just like it is in europe now, and even in parts of china they're moving out to cheaper areas or even to vietnam, laos, cambodia, myanmar.
Nikon itself opened a new factory in the Laos border and will probably close or partially close the other factory in Ayutthaya near Bangkok.
now, what's cheaper than Laos ? hmm ... Cambodia, but just a little bit, probably they skipped Cambodia because of the awful infrastructures and widespread corruption, same issues they would face in Indonesia by the way and what about Philippines ?
but this is the trend, china is now too expensive and many will move to greener pastures.
so we're already witnessing the second or third stage of global outsourcing :
the chinese are now complaining that south east asians are "stealing their jobs" !