Author Topic: Is Mr. Oringer no longer in control of SS? (Read 17394 times)

Mantis · « **Reply #25 on:** September 30, 2013, 13:11 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 30, 2013, 13:09

Jon please unban Mike, like now!

I don't think he is banned...but I could be wrong.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #26 on:** September 30, 2013, 13:12 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 30, 2013, 13:11

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 30, 2013, 13:09
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

Mantis · « **Reply #27 on:** September 30, 2013, 13:23 »

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 30, 2013, 13:12

Quote from: Mantis on September 30, 2013, 13:11
Quote from: luissantos84 on September 30, 2013, 13:09
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.

gbalex · « **Reply #28 on:** September 30, 2013, 13:35 »

Quote from: Mantis on September 30, 2013, 13:23

Quote from: luissantos84 on September 30, 2013, 13:12
Quote from: Mantis on September 30, 2013, 13:11
Quote from: luissantos84 on September 30, 2013, 13:09
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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #29 on:** September 30, 2013, 15:33 »

Quote from: dirkr on September 30, 2013, 11:38

Quote from: sharpshot on September 30, 2013, 11:32
Quote from: dirkr on September 30, 2013, 11:25
Quote from: sharpshot on September 30, 2013, 07:11
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.

topol · « **Reply #30 on:** September 30, 2013, 16:07 »

Quote from: dirkr on September 30, 2013, 11:38

Quote from: sharpshot on September 30, 2013, 11:32
Quote from: dirkr on September 30, 2013, 11:25
Quote from: sharpshot on September 30, 2013, 07:11
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.

nicku · « **Reply #31 on:** October 01, 2013, 00:39 »

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.

Nikd90 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 01, 2013, 01:41 »

Quote from: nicku on October 01, 2013, 00:39

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.

Kerioak~Christine · « **Reply #33 on:** October 01, 2013, 03:15 »

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)

Xanox · « **Reply #34 on:** October 01, 2013, 03:24 »

Quote from: stockastic on September 30, 2013, 11:26

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.

sharpshot · « **Reply #35 on:** October 01, 2013, 03:25 »

Quote from: nicku on October 01, 2013, 00:39

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.

nicku · « **Reply #36 on:** October 01, 2013, 05:54 »

Quote from: sharpshot on October 01, 2013, 03:25

Quote from: nicku on October 01, 2013, 00:39
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).

Xanox · « **Reply #37 on:** October 01, 2013, 07:24 »

Quote from: nicku on October 01, 2013, 05:54

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.

ruxpriencdiam · « **Reply #38 on:** October 01, 2013, 10:50 »

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #39 on:** October 01, 2013, 10:51 »

Quote from: Xanox on October 01, 2013, 03:24

Quote from: stockastic on September 30, 2013, 11:26
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.

Ron · « **Reply #40 on:** October 01, 2013, 11:18 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on October 01, 2013, 10:50

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.

gostwyck · « **Reply #41 on:** October 01, 2013, 11:26 »

Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on October 01, 2013, 10:50

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.

stockastic · « **Reply #42 on:** October 01, 2013, 11:26 »

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.

Xanox · « **Reply #43 on:** October 01, 2013, 12:34 »

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 ?

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #44 on:** October 01, 2013, 13:28 »

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.

Ron · « **Reply #45 on:** October 01, 2013, 13:31 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 01, 2013, 13:28

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.

tickstock · « **Reply #46 on:** October 01, 2013, 13:51 »

lisafx · « **Reply #47 on:** October 02, 2013, 11:07 »

Quote from: Xanox on October 01, 2013, 12:34

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.

Xanox · « **Reply #48 on:** October 02, 2013, 12:28 »

Quote from: lisafx on October 02, 2013, 11:07

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.

bunhill · « **Reply #49 on:** October 02, 2013, 12:46 »

Quote from: Xanox on October 02, 2013, 12:28

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

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Is Mr. Oringer no longer in control of SS? (Read 17394 times)

Mantis

luissantos84

Mantis

gbalex

sharpshot

topol

nicku

Nikd90

Kerioak~Christine

Xanox

sharpshot

nicku

Xanox

ruxpriencdiam

stockastic

Ron

gostwyck

stockastic

Xanox

Uncle Pete

Ron

tickstock

lisafx

Xanox

bunhill

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors