Author Topic: Shares Plummet (Read 34552 times)

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #50 on:** August 10, 2015, 09:50 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 09, 2015, 10:04

Well said VB inc. I completely agree, however I also think greed played a large part in the equation.

Two of the key players Insight Venture Capitol put in place, have now moved on. They usually stay as long as it is lucrative for them to do so. As for the bottom line, they will need to offer stock incentives to the two new replacements.

It will be interesting to see how things develop once the majority of IS exclusive defectors hit higher payout levels. They are trying to attract new contributors much more aggressively than in the past, however for most, it takes time to develop the skill necessary to be competitive and it takes time to build large portfolios.

I wonder how the market will respond when it becomes necessary to start paying higher royalties for the majority of their collection, because it will eat into profits.

that day when start paying higher royalties will never come at this attitude placating to grab money and f*** the corporation exists. venture capital is just that sort which is like those mining corporations which rape the land of resources, cause pointless pollution to make the land unlivable , fire the miners, pack up and leave the country with their big bucks and leave what is ghost towns all over the land.

no different with sharks shareholders who really don't give a rat's arse whether you or the corporation have a tomorrow at all. that's not why they are in the business. such shareholders have a history of bad karma, they would die a million deaths if they were to believe in karma , but they don't because they worship only money

bunhill · « **Reply #51 on:** August 10, 2015, 09:59 »

According to Adobe (16 June 2015) they now have 4.6 million CC subscribers (see the section marked Supplementary Business Unit Data).

According to Shutterstock they have 1.3 million customers in total.

It is easy to see why the stockmarket is nervous given that Shutterstock growth would largely depend upon growing the number of subscribers. And 4.6 million existing or potential customers already have an account with Adobe.

The inevitable outcome is surely going to be a downward pressure on costs.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #52 on:** August 10, 2015, 10:11 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 09, 2015, 10:04

Well said VB inc. I completely agree, however I also think greed played a large part in the equation.

Of course it played a large part!
All people in all societies pursue their own interest, seeking what is good for them, their families and their communities.
You do the same, every time you make an economical decision in your life, when you want an agency to pay you higher commissions, when you look for a good deal when you buy a lens, or when you want a cheaper car, etc.

Except that, when others do it, you call it "greed"!

Breaking News: there is nothing wrong with that, on the contrary! The pursue of self interest is the catalyst of all progress; it unleashes innovation, creativity, hard work and ultimately leads to a better life for all people.

gbalex · « **Reply #53 on:** August 10, 2015, 10:54 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 10, 2015, 09:50

that day when start paying higher royalties will never come at this attitude placating to grab money and f*** the corporation exists. venture capital is just that sort which is like those mining corporations which rape the land of resources, cause pointless pollution to make the land unlivable , fire the miners, pack up and leave the country with their big bucks and leave what is ghost towns all over the land.

no different with sharks shareholders who really don't give a rat's arse whether you or the corporation have a tomorrow at all. that's not why they are in the business. such shareholders have a history of bad karma, they would die a million deaths if they were to believe in karma , but they don't because they worship only money

I meant it from the royalty increase that occurs as they reach the next payout level. All sites benefited by IS exclusives jumping ship. But that bump in profits is only temporary because they will move up the ladder, and the best of them will do this quickly!

gbalex · « **Reply #54 on:** August 10, 2015, 11:02 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 10, 2015, 10:11

Quote from: gbalex on August 09, 2015, 10:04
Well said VB inc. I completely agree, however I also think greed played a large part in the equation.

Of course it played a large part!
All people in all societies pursue their own interest, seeking what is good for them, their families and their communities.
You do the same, every time you make an economical decision in your life, when you want an agency to pay you higher commissions, when you look for a good deal when you buy a lens, or when you want a cheaper car, etc.

Except that, when others do it, you call it "greed"!

Breaking News: there is nothing wrong with that, on the contrary! The pursue of self interest is the catalyst of all progress; it unleashes innovation, creativity, hard work and ultimately leads to a better life for all people.

With reason this is healthy, however the balance has been lost in micro and became worse when shutterstock rolled out the IPO leaving the wallstreet crowd to suck the company dry. The vehicle was different with IStock, but the results were similar.

I quit keeping track in January of this year, however at that time the key players place in the company by Insight venture capitol, excluding Jon have granted themselves 16,356,140 shares of SSTK stock at a cost to themselves of $0.

If they disposed of it at an average share price of $70 which was the low stock price in January, that amounted to $1,144,929,800

It is clear that the last thing on their minds is the welfare of contributors, their biggest concern was/is driving stock prices up, and they are in this for the short term. They know the window to drive stock prices up is limited. That is why you are seeing key players move on to the next lucrative IPO.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #55 on:** August 10, 2015, 12:34 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 10, 2015, 11:02

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 10, 2015, 10:11
Quote from: gbalex on August 09, 2015, 10:04
Well said VB inc. I completely agree, however I also think greed played a large part in the equation.

Of course it played a large part!
All people in all societies pursue their own interest, seeking what is good for them, their families and their communities.
You do the same, every time you make an economical decision in your life, when you want an agency to pay you higher commissions, when you look for a good deal when you buy a lens, or when you want a cheaper car, etc.

Except that, when others do it, you call it "greed"!

Breaking News: there is nothing wrong with that, on the contrary! The pursue of self interest is the catalyst of all progress; it unleashes innovation, creativity, hard work and ultimately leads to a better life for all people.

With reason this is healthy, however the balance has been lost in micro and became worse when shutterstock rolled out the IPO leaving the wallstreet crowd to suck the company dry. The vehicle was different with IStock, but the results were similar.

I quit keeping track in January of this year, however at that time the key players place in the company by Insight venture capitol, excluding Jon have granted themselves 16,356,140 shares of SSTK stock at a cost to themselves of $0.

If they disposed of it at an average share price of $70 which was the low stock price in January, that amounted to $1,144,929,800

It is clear that the last thing on their minds is the welfare of contributors, their biggest concern was/is driving stock prices up, and they are in this for the short term. They know the window to drive stock prices up is limited. That is why you are seeing key players move on to the next lucrative IPO.

Don't get me wrong, this discussion and the analysis are welcome. It helps all of us to make better decisions about who we choose to trust and make business with.

But this is nothing extraordinary.
The company I work for granted to ALL its employees stock options at $0 costs for the employees. It is only a more sophisticated reward system. Instead of doing it through bonuses, salary increases or other perks like other non-listed companies, they can also do it through stock options.

Nevertheless, if they paid themselves and their employees more than the company can afford, jeopardising the company's survival, you can call it mistake, error in judgement, foolishness, etc.

You should never blame a failure on "greed". But you can always blame a it on a mistake, on lack of vision, on stupidity etc.
"Greed" (only to use your word) is present in all of us. And who denies it is a hypocrite. Ultimately, it is what drives us all. It is what makes a company or an individual successful.

stockastic · « **Reply #56 on:** August 10, 2015, 13:21 »

Quote from: gbalex on August 10, 2015, 11:02

I quit keeping track in January of this year, however at that time the key players place in the company by Insight venture capitol, excluding Jon have granted themselves 16,356,140 shares of SSTK stock at a cost to themselves of $0.

If they disposed of it at an average share price of $70 which was the low stock price in January, that amounted to $1,144,929,800

That sounds like a textbook example of a Pump-and-Dump.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #57 on:** August 10, 2015, 15:27 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 10, 2015, 10:11

Quote from: gbalex on August 09, 2015, 10:04
Well said VB inc. I completely agree, however I also think greed played a large part in the equation.

Of course it played a large part!
All people in all societies pursue their own interest, seeking what is good for them, their families and their communities.
You do the same, every time you make an economical decision in your life, when you want an agency to pay you higher commissions, when you look for a good deal when you buy a lens, or when you want a cheaper car, etc.

Except that, when others do it, you call it "greed"!

except that other than yourself, we do not always do it for the good of just our families.
-we do pay a little more at the farmer's market,
-we pay a little more for the mom and pop store so that there do not go bankrupt
having to compete against the chain stores
- we do choose to pay more than just go to the golden m
for our meals , instead going to our local ethnic shish kabob family owned quick food restos.

we do that so that our town is not just one of those US Cda satillite towns that is nothing but walmart and xxxmart and whatever and parking lots and loads of shopping carts
scattering all over our garden and baseball fields,etc...

we do choose to go with those little companies for long term growth
rather than just make those big corporations and shareholders rich quick.

yes, we do call it "greed" because we don't see it the same page like you.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #58 on:** August 10, 2015, 15:33 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 10, 2015, 15:27

we do that so that our town is not just one of those US Cda satillite towns that is nothing but walmart and xxxmart and whatever and parking lots and loads of shopping carts
scattering all over our garden and baseball fields,etc...

we do choose to go with those little companies for long term growth
rather than just make those big corporations and shareholders rich quick.

This is exactly what I said. You do it for your self-interest, even if you don't realize it, or don't want to admit it. You do it, because you believe that your interest is better protected by the small mom and pop shops. Because you believe big corporations threaten your interests.
You are willing to pay a premium for it, the same way you are willing to pay a premium for an insurance or for a quality product.
You do it for your own good, not for the good of the mom and pop owners.

Rest assured, a lot of americans and canadians are ready to pay premiums for the same reasons as you. But at the same time, no one should deny others the right to buy cheaper stuff from Walmart or McDonalds, if they think it is in their own interest to do so.
And I would not go so far and claim that, if I can afford to pay that premium, I'm less "greedy" that someone who can only afford food from McDonalds (or not even that).

ShadySue · « **Reply #59 on:** August 10, 2015, 15:47 »

^^ That's not always true.
People who make a point of buying fair trade may feel good about doing it, but they make the choice primarily out of a sense of fair play, "If I should get paid fairly for what I make/do/provide, so should those who make/do/provide for me."

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #60 on:** August 10, 2015, 16:16 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 10, 2015, 12:34

You should never blame a failure on "greed".

Why not? If someone makes a bad decision because they got greedy then the failure most certainly can be blamed on greed. There are examples of this everywhere. May as well call it what it is.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #61 on:** August 10, 2015, 16:16 »

Quote from: ShadySue on August 10, 2015, 15:47

^^ That's not always true.
People who make a point of buying fair trade may feel good about doing it, but they make the choice primarily out of a sense of fair play, "If I should get paid fairly for what I make/do/provide, so should those who make/do/provide for me."

+100. Only greedy people think that everyone in the world is motivated by greed as they are. Greed is wanting the most for yourself and f#@k everybody else. Some people make decisions on what is best for their communities or society as a whole. That is altruism and not greed. Makes me sick when greedy selfish people justify it by saying everybody is the same as them.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #62 on:** August 10, 2015, 16:44 »

Quote from: PixelBytes on August 10, 2015, 16:16

Quote from: ShadySue on August 10, 2015, 15:47
^^ That's not always true.
People who make a point of buying fair trade may feel good about doing it, but they make the choice primarily out of a sense of fair play, "If I should get paid fairly for what I make/do/provide, so should those who make/do/provide for me."

+100. Only greedy people think that everyone in the world is motivated by greed as they are. Greed is wanting the most for yourself and f#@k everybody else. Some people make decisions on what is best for their communities or society as a whole. That is altruism and not greed. Makes me sick when greedy selfish people justify it by saying everybody is the same as them.

Pursuing self interest is not the same thing as being selfish. This is a big fallacy.

A simple example is tipping. You tip even if you never plan to set foot again in that restaurant. You are not selfish (obviously) and it is not charity; you tip because you want to reward and encourage good service in the future. It is a social norm built around self interest.
It is your self interest to live in prosperous community (safer streets, etc), so you are ready pay a premium for it, without being selfish. The same logic applies beyond the community, at country level and beyond, obviously with less and less intensity.

Another fact is the gap between some noble, good initiatives, like the "fair" trade and the perverse economical results seen on the ground. The gap between "Fair trade" results and the economical reality is no different than the gap between the noble intentions the communism had (+ fighting those "greedy" capitalists), and the economical disaster seen, once trying to make those great ideals, reality.

And I'm not only talking about all that corruption around the fair trade labeling and about those who made fortune out of a noble initiative, meant to help the poor.

I'm talking about the effect of "subsidizing" only some farmers, who, after becoming richer through fair trade deals, are able to grow their production and undercut market prices (because of their "fair trade" additional margins). This only destroys the business of the other poorer farmers, who only grow for the "regular" free competition market, without being able to make it into the "fair trade" club.
This leads to less supply, strengthening the "fair trade" business owners position, who can raise prices again, after driving their competitors out of business.

Besides, those new fair trade business owners hire workers who are often working in conditions inferior to what was considered "unfair" when they were simple workers, on their own little farm.
Fair trade "subsidies" are no different than the regular governmental subsidies. Both have the same noble intentions and the same perverse effect in reality.

Isn't it ironic that "fair trade" leads to "greed" and to the poor becoming poorer?

People believing in such doomed to fail noble intentions consider themselves morally superior (isn't it also self interest?), etc, while those pointing out their fallacies are labeled as selfish, "greedy", etc.

Remember, it is not called "greed" when you pursue your own interest, it is only called "greed" when others do the same, as this Nobel prize laureate explains here: https://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A

sgoodwin4813 · « **Reply #63 on:** August 10, 2015, 21:30 »

Wow, what a load of rubbish. You make very confident statements with absolutely no supporting evidence. Your user name is very appropriate.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #64 on:** August 10, 2015, 21:43 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on August 10, 2015, 21:30

Wow, what a load of rubbish. You make very confident statements with absolutely no supporting evidence. Your user name is very appropriate.

Hmm, which statements, if I may?

Statements like the ones in this material http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/images/pdf/unfair_trade.pdf
claiming that the only "fair trade" is the truly "free trade"?

or this: http://www.ipa.org.au/news/1203/fair-trade-coffee-only-brews-more-poverty/category/28

Or this study referenced by The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2014/05/agriculture-ethiopia-and-uganda?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/notsofairtrade

?

Please clarify.

tickstock · « **Reply #65 on:** August 10, 2015, 23:20 »

Fair trade and altruism don't seem to have much to do with Shutterstock's shares plummeting. It's the free market at its best, Adobe launched their site with cheaper prices than Shutterstock. Now Shutterstock is going to have to lower prices to compete, Adobe has a strong brand and a base of customers so they'll probably have to beat Adobe's pricing. Adobe pays less for subs too so you can probably expect royalties from subs to decrease as well. Adobe's main business isn't stock photos so they can decrease prices more without it hurting their core business and so on and so on. It's the free market working as it should.

stock-will-eat-itself · « **Reply #66 on:** August 11, 2015, 08:02 »

Adobe will be going after everyones client base as well, as most brand departments and web / design studios use their software so they already have the contact details.

Adobe also now have the brain drain from SS so they'll be moving fast.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #67 on:** August 11, 2015, 09:58 »

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on August 10, 2015, 16:16

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 10, 2015, 12:34
You should never blame a failure on "greed".

Why not? If someone makes a bad decision because they got greedy then the failure most certainly can be blamed on greed. There are examples of this everywhere. May as well call it what it is.

Both good decisions (when a company makes a successful move, like Adobe, probably) and bad decisions (as the one SSTK is blamed for) are driven by self interest (or "greed" if this is what you want to call it). This is why you can very well take "greed" out of the equation, and look for the real reason behind SSTK shares decline.

Quote from: tickstock on August 10, 2015, 23:20

It's the free market working as it should.

Tickstock is right.
SSTK stock is probably seen now, as bearing more risks. The reason might be a perceived failure to react to a stronger competition.
That "greed" nonsense has nothing to do with it.

etudiante_rapide · « **Reply #68 on:** August 11, 2015, 10:26 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 11, 2015, 09:58

That "greed" nonsense has nothing to do with it.

that greed (no inverted commas) is everything to do with it. only those who are clueless will call it nonsense

Zero Talent · « **Reply #69 on:** August 11, 2015, 10:57 »

Quote from: etudiante_rapide on August 11, 2015, 10:26

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 11, 2015, 09:58
That "greed" nonsense has nothing to do with it.

that greed (no inverted commas) is everything to do with it. only those who are clueless will call it nonsense

Endlessly repeating this leftist slogan will not make it true.

The freedom to pursue the self interest in a free market is the only mechanism that has ever provided a better life to the masses. Failure to understand this mechanism led only to disastrous experiments and widespread poverty.

Calling the fuel of all progress made by mankind "greed" proves either hypocrisy or true cluelessness.

Your naivete is touching, indeed

southpict · « **Reply #70 on:** August 11, 2015, 11:22 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 11, 2015, 10:57

...
The freedom to pursue the self interest in a free market is the only mechanism that has ever provided a better life to the masses. Failure to understand this mechanism led only to disastrous experiments and widespread poverty.

...

If your own interest is to steal what created your neighbor, this statement may be debatable.
2007-08 financial collapse is a "good" example where greed didn't provide any better life to masses.
PS : I am not leftist.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #71 on:** August 11, 2015, 11:32 »

Quote from: southpict on August 11, 2015, 11:22

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 11, 2015, 10:57
...
The freedom to pursue the self interest in a free market is the only mechanism that has ever provided a better life to the masses. Failure to understand this mechanism led only to disastrous experiments and widespread poverty.

...

If your own interest is to steal what created your neighbor, this statement may be debatable.
2007-08 financial collapse is a "good" example where greed didn't provide any better life to masses.
PS : I am not leftist.

No, it is not. You can be caught and thrown in jail. It is in your interest not to be thrown in jail. It is in your interest to live in a safe community. It is in your interest to pay taxes and support a police force in the community.

On the other hand, that 2007-08 collapse happened because of too much government intervention in the free market.
Yet another good and noble intention (affordable housing) which ended up with disastrous consequences.
The government intervention made mortgage lending virtually risk free, messing up the free market. The banks reacted to that incentive, the same way normal people reacted to abnormally cheap mortgages.

Let the market decide the lending and borrowing risks, and you will never end up in such messy situations. The supply and demand tend to miraculously agree with each other.

fotoVoyager · « **Reply #72 on:** August 11, 2015, 12:41 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 11, 2015, 11:32

On the other hand, that 2007-08 collapse happened because of too much government intervention in the free market.

That is the worst analysis of this event that I've ever read.

VB inc · « **Reply #73 on:** August 11, 2015, 12:51 »

Zero Talent,
You seem to be in the same mentality of Gordon Gekko in Wall street where he says greed is good...
I see it more in the lines of right and wrong. I believe there is a little bit of both in everyone but depending on conditioning and life situations, you can be a saint or a complete a-hole.
Greed might be a good thing if there is a presence of some form of empathy to keep greed in check. This is the reason why I came to the conclusion that Jon Oringer does not care too much for creativity as he has none himself. If he did, he would value that asset.
Publicly traded companies answer to shareholders. Stocks go up due to company making more money. Company gets bigger and buys out the smaller competitors with all this excess cash. Streamlines the process and usually sheds off employees from the bought out company to make it more efficient which means more money for the company. Outcome is more jobs are lost! Now why do we as a society celebrate these big companies??? I for one don't think this is any good for the future human species as a whole. So i come to the conclusion it is WRONG and greed plays the main bad guy in it...

VB inc · « **Reply #74 on:** August 11, 2015, 13:01 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on August 11, 2015, 11:32

...

On the other hand, that 2007-08 collapse happened because of too much government intervention in the free market.
Yet another good and noble intention (affordable housing) which ended up with disastrous consequences.
The government intervention made mortgage lending virtually risk free, messing up the free market. The banks reacted to that incentive, the same way normal people reacted to abnormally cheap mortgages.

Let the market decide the lending and borrowing risks, and you will never end up in such messy situations. The supply and demand tend to miraculously agree with each other.

A friend of mine was one of the managers at Freddy May a year or two the collapse and he got promoted to manager because he was really good at selling loans. This guy was a gangster i knew from my old hood with very thuggish mentality. He would tell me he would yell at his minions to close sales no matter what... He said it is sooo F***kn easy to close these things to grandmas and and the non speaking english as they were clueless to what they were getting themselves into. I remember thinking to myself... holy... this is some gangster stuff going on right here. Sounded like they were conning these people. One year later that whole thing collapsed.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Shares Plummet (Read 34552 times)

etudiante_rapide

bunhill

Zero Talent

gbalex

gbalex

Zero Talent

stockastic

etudiante_rapide

Zero Talent

ShadySue

sgoodwin4813

PixelBytes

Zero Talent

sgoodwin4813

Zero Talent

tickstock

stock-will-eat-itself

Zero Talent

etudiante_rapide

Zero Talent

southpict

Zero Talent

fotoVoyager

VB inc

VB inc

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors