MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Pauws99 on August 06, 2015, 11:42
-
Aug 6 2015, 12:30 ET | About: Shutterstock (SSTK) | By: Eric Jhonsa, SA News Editor
Shutterstock down 32.1% on weak guidance; CFO change announced
In addition to missing Q2 revenue estimates (while beating on EPS), Shutterstock (NYSE:SSTK) is guiding for Q3 revenue of $105M-$108M (below a $113.3M consensus) and 2015 revenue of $425M-$430M (below a $440.7M consensus). Full-year adjusted EBITDA guidance has been cut to $82M-$85M from $90M-$94M.
No explanation is given in the earnings release for the outlook. However, it arrives less than 2 months after Adobe (aided by the Fotolia acquisition) launched its Adobe Stock photo marketplace, while providing aggressive pricing and tight Creative Cloud integration.
Along with the numbers, Shutterstock has announced CFO Tim Bixby is leaving to "pursue other opportunities." Steven Burns, formerly the CFO of Tribune Media will succeed Bixby as CFO, and has resigned from the board.
Paid downloads rose 14% Y/Y in Q2, and revenue/download 13%. The size of Shutterstock's library rose 11% Q/Q and 47% Y/Y to 57.2M images.
Q2 results, PR
Adobe competition or investors wake up to over priced stock?
-
Ouch. Good thing I only put a couple hundred in there. Time to buy more?
-
Well here we go. Now they start looking for big cost reductions, and we all know where that leads.
As soon as they cut royalties, I'm out. I'm actually sort of looking forward to it, getting closure as it were.
-
the stock market is very volatile at the moment, not just because it is summer. Even apple was punished although they easily beat their own targets.
Might be a time to pick up something, but there is still is the general market volatility.
It would be helpful to hear data from adobe and the carlyle group how getty is doing.
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-30/carlyle-s-getty-images-debt-jumps-after-earnings-said-to-improve (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-30/carlyle-s-getty-images-debt-jumps-after-earnings-said-to-improve)
-
[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-30/carlyle-s-getty-images-debt-jumps-after-earnings-said-to-improve[/url] ([url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-30/carlyle-s-getty-images-debt-jumps-after-earnings-said-to-improve[/url])
Ouch! The microstock part - iStock and Thinkstock, I assume - down significantly from last year ($54.4m down from $65.4m)
-
Well here we go. Now they start looking for big cost reductions, and we all know where that leads.
As soon as they cut royalties, I'm out. I'm actually sort of looking forward to it, getting closure as it were.
That was my first thought.
-
Twitter & Yelp has given the market a really sour taste on technology recently, along with the closure of HomeJoy and the massive layoffs at Good Eggs. Everybody talked about a tech bubble and last week's Twitter earnings call started the deflation of that bubble.
I think we're going to see a lot of volatility ahead before it stabilizes.
-
So Getty lost around 10% in revenue. If that trend continues SS will be more than half of gettys revenue in 2015.
I actually think SS results are quite good, especially in the situation.
Now we need to hear from adobe :)
-
Here's a transcript of the earnings call today
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3408976-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-on-q2-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3408976-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-on-q2-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript)
There were a couple of interesting things. Revenue grew 27% and image collection growth was up 60% over last year's growth - which says where the pressure on our royalties is coming from.
Also interesting that the user base increased 25% but the enterprise customers grew 50% - they say 20K users, which probably means it's fewer companies (they're counting every person in the team packages?)
"...in the past year alone, the number of customers spending over $50,000 annually has doubled; and those spending over $100,000 has increased by nearly 70% (6:48). Our enterprise business now exceeds 20% of our overall revenue..."
With the 350 a month subscriptions, SS's take is much higher - where ours stays the same 38 cents max. Not sure that I like that.
SS revenue, if the buyer took all they were entitled to (which they don't) is 56.85 cents per d/l or 48.28 cents on the annual plan for 350 a month versus 33.2 cents or 26.53 on the annual plan with the 750 a month plans.
But from the link above from Bixby:
"On the gross margin side on the new products, our goal is for contributors to make a fair return. That is a key part of why our content library is so strong; if our contributors tend to come to us first, we pay out 28% or so of revenue across contributor base. Products on their own can have higher or lower royalty impacts, but we're seeing fairly consistent royalty rates across even the new products. It tends to be a little higher when you launch a new product then it comes down over time, because folks are testing, and without a limit they may download more. But the trend-lines are all going where we expect them to go. If we found that a new product had very strong uptake and great growth prospects, and it somehow had a higher download rate at a royalty or margin impact, we control that. We would have to decide and we would decide and our target is to continue to deliver that just under 30% return to our contributors. I expect that will continue to be very – part of the strategy going forward."
-
For what its worth I think its a realisation that the stock was overvalued. Its always a worry when a CFO leaves to pursue "other opportunities" a revision to figures sometimes following.
The thing I find most amazing/worrying is that the no of images available has increased by 50% in a year specially since they don't seem to want mine!
I think they remained focussed on growth so I don't see a royalty cut.
Nice to see our Istock fanboys jumping all over Sstocks grave - premature I think Istock have more to worry about with their mountain of debt as opposed to SStocks war chest of cash (watch out Dreamstime?)
-
I see they are not doing so well in Europe. Perhaps their shiny happy people in a shiny shadowless world style does not appeal so much to us glum Europeans and explains why Fotolia like my images more! :o
-
I own SS stock, and am very surprised it dropped 30% in one day on what I think is actually a good earnings report. Although, it was overvalued, they reported that they beat estimates so we should have seen an increase. Unless there is something I'm missing, this will be a good opportunity in my opinion to buy more shares. My only concern is that Adobestock could take more market share in the future, but based on my own revenues, I really don't see that happening.
-
I own SS stock, and am very surprised it dropped 30% in one day on what I think is actually a good earnings report. Although, it was overvalued, they reported that they beat estimates so we should have seen an increase. Unless there is something I'm missing, this will be a good opportunity in my opinion to buy more shares. My only concern is that Adobestock could take more market share in the future, but based on my own revenues, I really don't see that happening.
They're expect lower sales for the next earnings report, so that's one of the main reason for the fall. The other contributing fact is the resignation of the CFO.
SS's market cap isn't really that overvalued. Given their revenue, they're pretty much inline with their market value for this kind of company. People are just down on tech media stock at the moment.
-
Ouch. Good thing I only put a couple hundred in there. Time to buy more?
You gotta be kidding me. P/E is still sky high and the stock market bubble is about to burst.
-
I own SS stock, and am very surprised it dropped 30% in one day on what I think is actually a good earnings report. Although, it was overvalued, they reported that they beat estimates so we should have seen an increase. Unless there is something I'm missing, this will be a good opportunity in my opinion to buy more shares. My only concern is that Adobestock could take more market share in the future, but based on my own revenues, I really don't see that happening.
You say yourself its overvalued - why do you expect an increase? The market looks at the future not the past and I think its spooked a bit by adobe. I own a (very) few shares but steer clear of IT too risky in my view.
-
I'll never understand why they make outlandish estimates then cry about it when they can't achieve them.
-
Ouch. Good thing I only put a couple hundred in there. Time to buy more?
You gotta be kidding me. P/E is still sky high and the stock market bubble is about to burst.
Things do not look good for the overall market. The Fed is committing to higher interest rates but looks like it may have to do that in an economy which is not growing - that's bad medicine. Hence a lot people with profits in growth stocks are looking for reasons to sell and cash in now.
-
For what its worth I think its a realisation that the stock was overvalued. Its always a worry when a CFO leaves to pursue "other opportunities" a revision to figures sometimes following.
The thing I find most amazing/worrying is that the no of images available has increased by 50% in a year specially since they don't seem to want mine!
I think they remained focussed on growth so I don't see a royalty cut.
Nice to see our Istock fanboys jumping all over Sstocks grave - premature I think Istock have more to worry about with their mountain of debt as opposed to SStocks war chest of cash (watch out Dreamstime?)
I think it was a given that the team Insight Venture Capitol put in place would move on. They have provided the key players with a good portion of revenue in the form of free stock grants and they will now move on the the next lucrative IPO.
-
Oh well. No more gyms and free food for SS employees in the SS Tower.
-
Big price drop on big volume. Looks like a lot of shares were dumped in one day.
-
Some interesting questions coming out of the new earning call transcript.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3408976-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-on-q2-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3408976-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-on-q2-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript)
Snip
Question-and-Answer Session
Youssef H. Squali - Cantor Fitzgerald Securities
Hi, thank you very much, a couple questions, please, if I may. Tim, can you go back to and maybe give us a little more clarity on exactly what happened in Europe?
I think you singled out Europe as the area of some weakness around your e-commerce offering and then you were launching the new products. So maybe just some more detail on that would be helpful.
And then on the a-la-carte service, I think Adobe's offering is priced more competitively than yours. Any plans to match pricing? And if not, how do you compete within that niche? Thanks.
Rohit R. Kulkarni - RBC Capital Markets LLC
And as far as the big-picture competitive environment is concerned, is there any linearity that you saw in terms of how customer acquisition, or your retention, or your churn trended over the last 12 weeks to 18 weeks around Adobe launch? And how do you think you need to react over the next six months or so?
Dean J. Prissman - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
Hey, guys; thanks for taking my questions. I know you talked about enterprise customer growth, but what was the enterprise revenue growth in the quarter, and how did it compare to last quarter? And then I think following upon Youssef's question, Jon, what if anything in the competitive environment would make you consider price cuts in your a-la-carte business? Thank you.
-
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3408976-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-on-q2-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3408976-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-on-q2-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript)
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
Snip
To ensure we are meeting the demands of existing customers while also attracting new users, we remain focused on building cutting-edge technology and introducing new and innovative product offerings.
A great example is our rollout during the second quarter of monthly subscriptions with no daily download limit. We also rolled out a smaller subscription offering for users who may not need as many images per month. While these new subscription offerings have some short-term financial implications which Tim will discuss in a moment, over time we expect them to drive additional subscription growth, extend average retention length, and increase lifetime customer value.
Snip
With more contributors than ever uploading their best content and a state-of-the-art processing operation and best images 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we believe we are well positioned to scale the supply-side of our marketplace for years to come. We see plenty of opportunities to invest even further, to create the best user experience for both customers and contributors, and we will continue to do so even if the ultimate return on that spend is not expected for quite some time.
Snip
Before I finished up, I'm sure that most of you have seen the announcement that Tim will be leaving Shutterstock and Steven Berns, one of our board members up until a few days ago, will be taking over the CFO role next month.
Timothy E. Bixby - Chief Financial Officer
Snip
While customer growth this past quarter remained quite strong, the number of new e-commerce customers was somewhat below our initial expectations, primarily due to some softness across much of Europe.
However, as Jon mentioned, we recently launched several new subscription offerings to better meet customer needs. The early signs have been encouraging, with subscription growth increasing versus the months before we introduced these products. There is one nuance surrounding the new product offerings that I want to mention, as it impacted reported revenues this past quarter and does have full-year implications.
While the new subscriptions are expected to lift average customer lifetime revenue, revenue recognition is somewhat more back-loaded to the end of each month rather than evenly spread across the month. And this is due to the monthly rather than daily download limitation. As a result, we saw an increase in deferred revenue due to this change, and we recognized roughly $2 million less in revenue during the second quarter than we likely would have had with no product changes. This impact will flow through the remainder of the year.
While customer expansion is certainly the biggest driver of our strong revenue growth, it is not the only metric that is growing nicely. Revenue per download increased 13%, and paid downloads increased 14% year-on-year, with the growth in revenue per download reflecting the impact of higher enterprise sales as well as continued momentum across video, editorial, and music products, all of which carry higher than average effective prices for Shutterstock.
Snip
The strongest growth driver continues to be our enterprise business as we further build our relationships with agencies, media organizations, and large enterprises, by adapting our core offerings to their needs. This was a business that barely existed several years ago and now has over 20,000 users, up over 50% from the second quarter in 2014.
-
no surprise. a long time ago, some od chinaman wrote a big about how you run an army.
it said something like this...
you have problem with the army, you kill the generals.
you don't kill the soldiers.
you starve the soldiers, you lose the war.
or something like that in loss of translation due to mandarin book.
but more or less this is the base of many successful great modern business CEOs of big corporation.
ss failed this art of war lesson the moment they went public and listen to the shareholders.
they cut off their ricebowls as the chinamen call it. you do not cut off your ricebowl at any cost.
you cut off the heads of the generals, yes. but you never cut off the hands of the soldiers.
we are the soldiers. the fall of the shares reflect many months of the complaints by contrbutors.
investors are not stupid and do not read the ss forum.
the smart investors know the moment ss cut the hands of their little soldiers,
this is like pleasing the corrupt courtiers so they get rich quick but will cause the fall of the dynasty.
the emperor falls as long as the emperor does not follow the old rules of war.
ask any intelligent businessman and they will tell you the word of this old chinaman is not rubbish.
even the wisest of the millionaire in china like alibaba CEO etc all follow the words of
this old rule for running an army.
many businesses in my country who are not chinese (here speaks portuguese)
still follow the rules of ancient chinaman laotzu or what his name.
this is what happens when you listen to shareholders to cut off the hands of the soldiers
once they reach 38 cts a download and please the shareholders to placate those
who cheer when they reach payout once every 5 months.
-
I just took all my earnings from bigstock from July and bought SS stocks....or stock.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Paid downloads rose 14% Y/Y in Q2, and revenue/download 13%. The size of Shutterstock's library rose 11% Q/Q and 47% Y/Y to 57.2M images.
Adobe competition or investors wake up to over priced stock?
If earnings dropped while revenue rose then their costs have increased. They certainly haven't increased what they pay us so it must be somewhere else - too much for top management? Too many employee perks?
I think the stock was overvalued and due for a drop but the magnitude of it that fast was surprising - maybe all of the insiders saw it coming and cashed out their options.
-
Paid downloads rose 14% Y/Y in Q2, and revenue/download 13%. The size of Shutterstock's library rose 11% Q/Q and 47% Y/Y to 57.2M images.
Adobe competition or investors wake up to over priced stock?
If earnings dropped while revenue rose then their costs have increased.
They certainly haven't increased what they pay us so it must be somewhere else - too much for top management? Too many employee perks?
I think the stock was overvalued and due for a drop but the magnitude of it that fast was surprising - maybe all of the insiders saw it coming and cashed out their options.
Snip
GAAP net income in the quarter was $5.3 million or $0.15 per share, as compared to $4.9 million or $0.14 per share a year ago. The increase primarily reflects the improved operating performance, offset somewhat by increases in stock-based compensation expense.
Non-GAAP net income, which primarily excludes the after-tax impact of non-cash equity-based compensation expense and the amortization of acquisition-related intangibles, increased 23% in the second quarter to $11.2 million or $0.31 per share.
Snip
So for the full year of 2015, we're updating our guidance as follows: Revenue of $425 million to $430 million; adjusted EBIDTA of $82 million to $85 million; non-cash equity-based compensation expense of approximately $31 million; an effective tax rate approximately 44%; and capital expenditures approximately $18 million.
And now taking a look specifically at the third quarter, and we are assuming in these figures both for the quarter and the full year no material change from current U.S. Dollar exchange rates, we expect in the third quarter revenue of $105 million to $108 million; adjusted EBITDA of $18 million to $20 million; non-cash equity-based compensation expense of approximately $8 million; an effective tax rate of 44%; and CapEx of approximately $5 million.
Snip
Operating expenses increased 32% versus the second quarter a year ago, with the primary driver being the higher contributor royalties associated with our growing revenue base. Contributor royalties were again stable at approximately 28% of our revenue in the second quarter.
Given the consistency in our contributor payout ratio, our gross margin has also remained largely steady at approximately 60% this past quarter excluding stock compensation expense.
Sales and marketing expense was approximately 25% of revenue in the quarter, excluding stock compensation costs. Though we are seeing somewhat higher keyword costs due to competition, it is important to note that our overall marketing spend as a percent of revenue is essentially unchanged versus the prior-year quarter.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3408976-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-on-q2-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3408976-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-on-q2-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript)
-
Good news. A destructive system loses power.
-
Thanks for providing that gbalex - so basically their profits are off because they are paying out too much in stock options to management. Or at least that's how I interpret that. It's a different mechanism but basically the same strategy that eventually severely damaged iStock.
-
"With more contributors than ever uploading their best content and a state-of-the-art processing operation and best images 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we believe we are well positioned to scale the supply-side of our marketplace for years to come."
I simply can't see how that can turn out to be true. I have a hard time imagining who would even be continuing to submit microstock at all, in years to come.
-
I simply can't see how that can turn out to be true. I have a hard time imagining who would even be continuing to submit microstock at all, in years to come.
I still see a lot of good looking stuff coming in from the factories. None of it original AT ALL, but gives the impression that quality is still coming. We're getting closer to the time when it will be just excited newbs and big factories.
Wonder if the factories are feeling the same type of hurt as the individual pros?
-
I don't know about everyone else, but i started to to have doubts about shutterstock about a year ago. It probably is due to a fact that they admit to continue selling cheap to gain market share while the quality of the images rises. istock started at 10 cents a download but they adjusted their price along the years to reflect the quality at least. Did shutterstock raise their's? I am not sure on this matter.
I also bought shares of shutterstock when they were originally in the 40s and sold them in mid 90's when the Getty free images hoopla happened. I felt the general consensus among many of the members here turn from yay to boo around the same time my feelings turned south. In my view, there has been no positive news for contributors lately.
The market isn't stupid. This business model depends on crowdsourcing. The market see the pitchforks being sharpened by its contributors and many are voicing their complaints. I think the stock reflects the overall contributor mood which is going south...
-
I lost a lot of faith in SS over how they ran BigStock. Theirs no excuse for owning a site that starts to follow the flawed strategy that istock implemented. Just look at BigStock in the earnings polls, they were doing better for most of us as an independent site.
-
A possible cost factor for SS that must have increased dramatically is the cost of reviewing images. Based on their new (irrational) review strategy the average review cost per accepted images must have doubled in recent times since a large percentage of accepted images were probably reviewed at least twice before acceptance.
-
Although according to some they have automated the process! I'm not sure since the quality of reviewing doesn't give the impression they spend much time on it!
-
I don't know about everyone else, but i started to to have doubts about shutterstock about a year ago. It probably is due to a fact that they admit to continue selling cheap to gain market share while the quality of the images rises. istock started at 10 cents a download but they adjusted their price along the years to reflect the quality at least. Did shutterstock raise their's? I am not sure on this matter.
I also bought shares of shutterstock when they were originally in the 40s and sold them in mid 90's when the Getty free images hoopla happened. I felt the general consensus among many of the members here turn from yay to boo around the same time my feelings turned south. In my view, there has been no positive news for contributors lately.
The market isn't stupid. This business model depends on crowdsourcing. The market see the pitchforks being sharpened by its contributors and many are voicing their complaints. I think the stock reflects the overall contributor mood which is going south...
You summed it up well and I agree. My enthusiasm took a real hit when I read these comments from Shutterstock Management when they presented at the Goldman Sachs US Emerging Cap Growth Conference.
Shutterstock publicly admitted that they have purposely chosen not to raise prices as a business strategy to gain market share. Shutterstock has also stated that they will continue to price undercut the competition as a long term business road path.
"We haven’t raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow."
Snip
Duck Swartz
So what’s changed in the marketplace that’s giving you the opportunity to locate in the enterprise in a more, in a more robust way?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
The quality of the images has increased pretty dramatically over the past 10 years
So in the past five years the contents gone up to a level where the biggest publishers in the world mediated either starting to notice that is price, these images are not only price well, but they are also similar to some images that they have paid thousands of dollars for and also had to be on the phone for an hour negotiating the license for that image.
Snip
Duck Swartz
Talking about your present strategy longer term?
Timothy E. Bixby - CFO
We think we can raise the prices over the long term but we’re primary in the growth mode right now and we would like to continue to cover as much of the world as possible and take as much as growth in the business that we can before we play with the pricing level.
We haven’t raised prices in many years and then been a great strategy so far to grow.
Snip
Jonathan Oringer - Founder, CEO & Chairman of the Board
It still multiples. So it's order of magnitude whether it's if you look at us compared to other stock marketplaces like an iStock or others, it's two or three or four times more expensive to not use Shutterstock. If you look at the higher end sort of more traditional marketed might be 6 or 8 or 10 times more expensive.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last (http://seekingalpha.com/article/1841072-shutterstocks-management-presents-at-the-goldman-sachs-us-emerging-smid-cap-growth-conference-transcript?page=2&p=qanda&l=last)
-
Although according to some they have automated the process! I'm not sure since the quality of reviewing doesn't give the impression they spend much time on it!
Too bad one of the analyst did not ask about shutterstocks "state-of-the-art processing operation". It would be interesting to hear how they describe it to the financial crowd.
"With more contributors than ever uploading their best content and a state-of-the-art processing operation and best images 24 hours a day, seven days a week, we believe we are well positioned to scale the supply-side of our marketplace for years to come."
-
Just to add to their review and response-to-queries' costs, it appears that the "categories missing" problem has resurfaced. I got a rejection for "Incorrect category" and when I submitted a query, I got a response (which appears to be written in a hurry), that only the title had the relevant information. This had led me to infer that my categories that appeared to be intact at the time of submission, had vanished in their system after that.
So, for now, I am telling myself to double-check all items (categories / illustration flag etc.) just prior to submitting the images. Beyond that, we cannot do much :)
-
I don't know about everyone else, but i started to to have doubts about shutterstock about a year ago. It probably is due to a fact that they admit to continue selling cheap to gain market share while the quality of the images rises. istock started at 10 cents a download but they adjusted their price along the years to reflect the quality at least. Did shutterstock raise their's? I am not sure on this matter.
I also bought shares of shutterstock when they were originally in the 40s and sold them in mid 90's when the Getty free images hoopla happened. I felt the general consensus among many of the members here turn from yay to boo around the same time my feelings turned south. In my view, there has been no positive news for contributors lately.
The market isn't stupid. This business model depends on crowdsourcing. The market see the pitchforks being sharpened by its contributors and many are voicing their complaints. I think the stock reflects the overall contributor mood which is going south...
I had my doubts regarding Shutterstock in 2007 when I first started to play in the microstock arena. 0.25c royalties were a complete insult 8 years ago, and they are a complete insult today. Needless to say I never sold myself out.
-
Not surprised. The only way you're going to make money on Shutterstock is if you short the stock as it continues to fall. It still has a P/E ratio of 60 so it's still overpriced. Also as the news of Adobe getting into the game starts to sink in, more people will be looking at the figures more closely and asking more questions about the marketplace. Jon Oringer is going to be in for a fun ride as he deals with angry investors seeking answers to their losing investments. Oh well, you live by the sword... If you want to buy a stock, you'd be better off buying Apple instead. (Adobe is also overpriced)
This just in, someone at Cantor Fitzgerald has been taking cat drugs: "Cantor Fitzgerald Analyst Reaffirmed $72.0 Price Target on Shutterstock (NYSE:SSTK) stock, While Reiterating Buy Rating" - Sweet mother of god...
http://www.octafinance.com/cantor-fitzgerald-analyst-reaffirmed-72-0-price-target-on-shutterstock-nysesstk-stock-while-reiterating-buy-rating/ (http://www.octafinance.com/cantor-fitzgerald-analyst-reaffirmed-72-0-price-target-on-shutterstock-nysesstk-stock-while-reiterating-buy-rating/)
-
If we learned just one thing from the dot-com bubble, it was that those "analysts" are often just a well paid marketing arm of the companies they're "analyzing".
-
Shutterstock (SSTK) Stock Downgraded at Jefferies
Snip
Downgraded to "hold" from "buy" at Jefferies, which cut price target to $39 from $90.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/13249151/1/shutterstock-sstk-stock-downgraded-at-jefferies.html (http://www.thestreet.com/story/13249151/1/shutterstock-sstk-stock-downgraded-at-jefferies.html)
Shutterstock (NYSE:SSTK) Was Downgraded by Analysts at RBC Capital
Snip
Shutterstock (NYSE:SSTK)’s rating was cut by stock analysts at RBC Capital from a “Sector Perform” rating to a “Outperform” rating in a research report issued on Wednesday morning.
The stock downgrade is probably noticed by stock traders, as NYSE:SSTK is now trading -2.24% lower at $33.65 as of 07:13 New York time. Shutterstock shares have declined -54.5% in the last 200 days, while the S&P500 Index has risen 7.02% in the same time period.
http://www.octafinance.com/shutterstock-nysesstk-was-downgraded-by-analysts-at-rbc-capital-to-a-outperform-rating/ (http://www.octafinance.com/shutterstock-nysesstk-was-downgraded-by-analysts-at-rbc-capital-to-a-outperform-rating/)
-
Too bad one of the analyst did not ask about shutterstocks "state-of-the-art processing operation". It would be interesting to hear how they describe it to the financial crowd.
analyst are no better than weather station ppl predicting the weather.
those of us old enough to have started investing in the 80s would remember there was a bunch of experts who made alot of money as teachers of investing. i was one of those who bought their lessons.
later they started an investment company, so we all went in big time since they were all experts.
we lost big time as well. the only ppl who actually make money in stock market are the sales agents.
and the inside traders. everybody else are brought in for the roller coaster ride, just so wall st continues to make money as the rest of us lost our pants off our retirement savings.
-
Too bad one of the analyst did not ask about shutterstocks "state-of-the-art processing operation". It would be interesting to hear how they describe it to the financial crowd.
analyst are no better than weather station ppl predicting the weather.
those of us old enough to have started investing in the 80s would remember there was a bunch of experts who made alot of money as teachers of investing. i was one of those who bought their lessons.
later they started an investment company, so we all went in big time since they were all experts.
we lost big time as well. the only ppl who actually make money in stock market are the sales agents.
and the inside traders. everybody else are brought in for the roller coaster ride, just so wall st continues to make money as the rest of us lost our pants off our retirement savings.
I was more interested in how shutterstock would sell themselves to market investors re "state-of-the-art processing operation"
-
I don't know about everyone else, but i started to to have doubts about shutterstock about a year ago. It probably is due to a fact that they admit to continue selling cheap to gain market share while the quality of the images rises. istock started at 10 cents a download but they adjusted their price along the years to reflect the quality at least. Did shutterstock raise their's? I am not sure on this matter.
I also bought shares of shutterstock when they were originally in the 40s and sold them in mid 90's when the Getty free images hoopla happened. I felt the general consensus among many of the members here turn from yay to boo around the same time my feelings turned south. In my view, there has been no positive news for contributors lately.
The market isn't stupid. This business model depends on crowdsourcing. The market see the pitchforks being sharpened by its contributors and many are voicing their complaints. I think the stock reflects the overall contributor mood which is going south...
I had my doubts regarding Shutterstock in 2007 when I first started to play in the microstock arena. 0.25c royalties were a complete insult 8 years ago, and they are a complete insult today. Needless to say I never sold myself out.
I was istock exclusive since 2007 or so and quit being exclusive there about 2 years ago. I am happier for leaving exclusivity as I didn't need the blood pressure spikes I would get from the sheer greed of that company when getty took over. I also have to say that I never did this full time so the decision for me to leave is a lot easier than someone who is a full timer. I am a vector artist and would never put anything i deem to have any real creative value into shutterstock portfolio and concentrate on simple general images that brings me hundreds a month with minimal effort from my part.
The sad fact is if you are used to getting so much more money for your images, anything less than $1 is an insult. But for many who got into this industry in recent years, it has become the norm. I believe those high paying days are gone and Shutterstock played a huge role in bringing this industry to where it is today.
I blame it on Jon Oringer. He isn't a creative person. He is just a tech geek that took thousands of snap shots in his first year to start this site. i am sure he took hundreds of photos a day with no creativity at all. Anyone who is creative person values creativity and knows it takes hard work and lots of passion to get to a highly skilled level.
You say you never sold yourself out. Its guys like Jon, or the suits at Getty that have absolutely no respect for creativity that really sold you out.
-
You say you never sold yourself out. Its guys like Jon, or the suits at Getty that have absolutely no respect for creativity that really sold you out.
Very well said, and right on the money… or lack thereof.
-
Hilarious how they downgrade SSTK only after the shares fall 30%. These analysts know nothing.
In my country there are often companies with P/E below 7, sometimes even 3.
When buying a P/E 20+ you're solely relying on the greater fool theory.
-
I was more interested in how shutterstock would sell themselves to market investors re "state-of-the-art processing operation"
yes, we used to have FRED for everything state of the art in IT.
today ss has ATILLA 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
-
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.
-
Ouch. Good thing I only put a couple hundred in there. Time to buy more?
You gotta be kidding me. P/E is still sky high and the stock market bubble is about to burst.
Far over the real value. People like my Grandmother jumped on this and pushed it up. SSTK is bound to come back to a realistic price in a big adjustment. This could be it.
-
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 8)
-
According to Adobe (16 June 2015) (http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/investor-relations/PDFs/61605102/sYlvCma1d3g5j7.pdf?PID=2159997) they now have 4.6 million CC subscribers (see the section marked Supplementary Business Unit Data).
According to Shutterstock (http://seekingalpha.com/article/3408976-shutterstock-sstk-jonathan-oringer-on-q2-2015-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=2) 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.
-
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.
-
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 8)
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. 8)
-
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).
-
^^ 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."
-
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.
-
^^ 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.
-
^^ 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
-
Wow, what a load of rubbish. You make very confident statements with absolutely no supporting evidence. Your user name is very appropriate.
-
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 (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 (http://www.ipa.org.au/news/1203/fair-trade-coffee-only-brews-more-poverty/category/28)
Or this (http://ftepr.org/wp-content/uploads/FTEPR-Final-Report-19-May-2014-FINAL.pdf) study referenced by The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2014/05/agriculture-ethiopia-and-uganda?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/notsofairtrade (http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2014/05/agriculture-ethiopia-and-uganda?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/notsofairtrade)
?
Please clarify.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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
-
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 :'(
-
...
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.
-
...
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
...
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.
-
...
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.
...
! 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...
1. big companies make a much better use of the capital and resources than a mom and pop shop. This is what you should celebrate. It will take mom and pop months to polish a lens and assemble a camera. The price would be prohibitive for most of us. The competition forces big corporation like Canon, Nikon, etc to find ways to become more and more efficient, cut costs, innovate, and offer you the chance to be a photographer.
2. jobs are lost where efficiency is lost, but you forget to see that new jobs are created where it is more efficient to invest. You don't need an army of villagers to carry water every day from a well, when it is more efficient to build a pipe. Water carriers lose their jobs, but plumbers are in high demand. And regular villagers prosper when water runs in their village allowing them to evolve towards more productive jobs.
3. If Oringer doesn't value creativity, in a free market, there will always be a smarter competitor to realise the chance to value it, and Oringer will be penalised.
Kodak has not realised the value of the digital camera (despite pioneering it) and has been penalised. Are we worse off without Kodak? Not at all! On the contrary! Photography has been growing ever since.
Jobs have been lost in the film manufacturing industry, because of that lack of vision, indeed, but more jobs have been created in the digital photography business (microstock inclusive).
Ask yourself what has driven all this innovation, if not the pursuit of self interest, the self-interest of those innovative companies, their shareholders, and ultimately, the self-interest of regular consumers like you and me (looking for better products and lower prices)
-
...
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.
That's exactly what I was talking about:
The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), known as Freddie Mac, is a public government-sponsored enterprise] (GSE)
The Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), commonly known as Fannie Mae, was founded in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of the New Deal. It is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE)
The government made mortgage lending a risk free joke.
These 2 politically driven monster institutions incentivised banks to lend left and right (protected by a governmental insurance) and borrowers to get unsustainable mortgages.
-
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.
...
Sorry but I can't agree with that . In an ideal world may be, but in the real world there is a variable named "corruption". Corruption is every where. Economy, finance and politics are intertwined and can do exactly what they want when they want. In jail , you will find mostly those who are not part of this system.
Sometimes a "fuse" is given to the media when the people need it and life goes on...
-
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.
...
Sorry but I can't agree with that . In an ideal world may be, but in the real world there is a variable named "corruption". Corruption is every where. Economy, finance and politics are intertwined and can do exactly what they want when they want. In jail , you will find mostly those who are not part of this system.
Sometimes a "fuse" is given to the media when the people need it and life goes on...
You are right. If you dig deep enough, you will find that the common denominator between these corrupt intertwined politics and economics is a "big" government.
You can't be "corrupted" to sell what's yours, below the market price. But you can do it when you sell what's not yours.
Government bureaucrats have the power to distribute other people's money, and reward special interest groups with customized laws. This is exactly why corruption happens (not to mention economical disasters)
But as I said before, disasters often happen as a consequence of what initially appeared to be a good and noble intention promoted by idealists or, more frequently, by populist politicians with no interest in long term econmical effects (because of the short election cycles)
Restrict the government involvement in the economy, allow people the freedom to pursue their own interest in a free market society and corruption will dissappear.
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
Restrict the government involvement in the economy, allow people the freedom to pursue their own interest in a free market society and corruption will dissappear.
Another huge load of nonsense. Yes, if there are no rules to break then there can be no corruption - by definition. But allowing people to do what they want with no regulations will only lead to disaster as we have seen many times in the past. Allowing people to pursue their self interest without government involvement gave us a Cuyahoga River that caught fire many times, the Love Canal disaster and is currently making the air in many parts of China unsafe to breathe. You can't call it corruption if there are no rules to break but it is a disaster either way.
You are right that the financial crisis of 2008 was caused in part by well-meaning policies of the Clinton administration to lower lending standards as a way of increasing the rate of home ownership. However, it was much more complex than that and included allowing too many mergers creating the whole "too big to fail" situation and eliminating the barriers between lending and investment banking. Just before the crash we had six years where Republicans controlled the house, senate and presidency and reduced or eliminated many regulations on all kinds of businesses. The crash was caused exactly by allowing people to pursue their own self interest without government intervention. The lessons learned from the Depression served us well for 60 years and it was only when we forgot that and let businesses do what they want that we had another major problem.
I agree with you that allowing people to pursue their own self interest is essential and is the main driver of a successful economy. However, it has to be properly regulated to make sure that your pursuing your own interest doesn't interfere with others pursuing theirs, and to prevent too few people controlling all of the wealth so that nobody else can advance.
Now my cats are pursuing their own self interest and telling me that I need to feed them so I'd better stop.
-
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 :'(
really, naivete???
your being so verbose is rather amusing to me too ;D
-
Zero Talent = Trump voter?
-
Zero Talent = Trump voter?
Lol, that clown? Not in a million years!
Belive it or not, I would rather vote Democrat, in abscence of a 3rd way ;)
Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
-
I hope he gets nominated and separates the Pubs, Then Hillary will win hands down. LOL I wouldn't be surprised if she put him up to it. Perfect Move.lol.
back to topic. shares Plummet.
-
... there is a big difference between self interest and greed - greed is a sickness, and self interest is a normal thing - when the whole world becomes your self interest, and nothing else - then you become greedy, it is not enough to have 10.000.000 $ you have to have 10000000000000000000000000000...$ - not because you need it - but because you are ... sick...
..today's capitalist world is a world without a shred of humanity - we will have in the future a lot of violence... and revolutions...
-
All the mainstream media hates Trump so bad, he must be doing something right.
-
I hope he gets nominated and separates the Pubs, Then Hillary will win hands down. LOL I wouldn't be surprised if she put him up to it. Perfect Move.lol.
back to topic. shares Plummet.
Trump definitely makes things interesting. It's possible he actually thinks he has a chance of winning, or maybe it's all just for publicity and a way to feed his evidently limitless ego. He has said he likes Hillary and that the economy does much better under Democrats so maybe part of his goal is to try to make sure Hillary can win - assuming she gets the nomination instead of Bernie Sanders. The fact that so many Republicans in Iowa seriously support Trump is shocking - I assume it indicates a backlash against the ruling families and I'm all for that, just wish there was a realistic candidate. If we end up with Bernie running against Donald that would certainly say that the People are tired of politics as usual.
SSTK at just under $33 this morning. With a P/E over 56 it still seems a bit overpriced to me but getting close. Wish I had bought some at the beginning and sold at the peak. I would definitely buy Canva now if they were public - they still seem to be on the upswing.
-
..today's capitalist world is a world without a shred of humanity - we will have in the future a lot of violence... and revolutions...
I wouldn't go quite that far - there are still many people trying to make a positive difference and capitalist economies are the best we have. Thousands of people are dying every year trying to migrate to capitalist countries where they will have a chance at improving their lives.
Unfortunately, violence and revolution seem to be a part of human nature - we have had those in abundance for the past 6000 years of recorded history and presumably long before that. With constantly increasing populations conflict is inevitable regardless of the political system. However, I agree that the system nowadays in the US at least is tilted far too much towards the wealthy. If something doesn't change we will end up with a two-tiered society of owners versus renters - maybe we are there already. Hopefully it won't take a violent revolution to fix it.
-
... there is a big difference between self interest and greed - greed is a sickness, and self interest is a normal thing - when the whole world becomes your self interest, and nothing else - then you become greedy, it is not enough to have 10.000.000 $ you have to have 10000000000000000000000000000...$ - not because you need it - but because you are ... sick...
..today's capitalist world is a world without a shred of humanity - we will have in the future a lot of violence... and revolutions...
"Greed" is not a sickness, but one of the "7 deadly sins". Religion is the source of the negative connotation. And as the Bible says: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone".
I dare you to cast that stone!
Instead, you better acknowledge reality, and try to work out the best system possible, in a world which will always be full of imperfections.
You can continue to call it "greed" if you want, but I dare you to draw the line between the "normal thing" and "greed", as you see it. What is "normal thing" for you will definitely be labeled as "greed", by millions of people in this world! Or by those who lived 100 years ago. Even by some medieval kings.
I also dare you to describe the alternative system which will only yield the beautiful results you are dreaming of.
Would it be communism again, where bureaucrats attempt to control everything, while claiming that they know better than you, what is good for you?
Would it be a system where an "illuminated" dictator knows better than you, what is good for you?
Would it be a system where an "intellectual elite" knows better than you, what's good for you?
I can only warn you that all the do-gooders mentioned above will definitely pursue their self interest, not yours.
Please describe your "Brave New World"!
About revolutions, you know what? You might be right, but if you are, it will be for totally different reasons that the ones you think of.
Revolutions start when governments take freedom away from people, and subsequent failed governmental policies lead to poverty and generalized corruption.
I know you will not agree with me, but free trade, free market and the freedom to pursue the self-interest, of an individual, family or community is exactly what brings you, as close as possible, to the "heaven" "Imagine-d" by John Lennon (I'm sure you would agree with). But pay attention: without ever creating heaven on earth.
Free trade, free market and freedom to pursue self interest, "magically" brings together people from different countries, different religions, different races, different cultures, who might easily hate each other, under a different social system. An "invisible hand" drives those people to work in harmony (even without knowing it) in a free trade, free market society, and achieve a better life for each one of them.
Nobody tells it better than this economist in this simple "Lesson of the Pencil".
I would strongly encourage you to watch this 10 minutes clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERbC7JyCfU)
-
..today's capitalist world is a world without a shred of humanity - we will have in the future a lot of violence... and revolutions...
I wouldn't go quite that far - there are still many people trying to make a positive difference and capitalist economies are the best we have. Thousands of people are dying every year trying to migrate to capitalist countries where they will have a chance at improving their lives.
..these people that try to migrate to capitalist countries - like Syrians today - are forced by pure capitalism, war is one of the main tools of capitalism, everything is much more linked than it looks on the surface...
...we will have revolutions for sure - what kind and what will be the next "solution" - I don t know...
-
...we will have revolutions for sure - what kind and what will be the next "solution" - I don t know...
A guillotine in the middle of Wall Street? Not the worst idea ever....
;) - so no one thinks I am a anarchist.
-
...we will have revolutions for sure - what kind and what will be the next "solution" - I don t know...
A guillotine in the middle of Wall Street? Not the worst idea ever....
.. hm - it would never occur to me - interesting idea... where are you from?
-
..these people that try to migrate to capitalist countries - like Syrians today - are forced by pure capitalism, war is one of the main tools of capitalism, everything is much more linked than it looks on the surface...
...we will have revolutions for sure - what kind and what will be the next "solution" - I don t know...
That is nonsense - capitalism has nothing to do with wars. Certainly some capitalists have benefitted greatly from wars but most would say that war is bad for business and therefore against their self interest (getting back to the theme Zero Talent likes to bring up).
In Syria the problems are caused by the dictator Assad and ISIS. Do you think ISIS is setting up a capitalist society? Certainly not!
Religion is the biggest cause of wars, not capitalism. If we could get rid of religion then we could reduce differences between societies and the cause for many wars would go away immediately. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
-
..these people that try to migrate to capitalist countries - like Syrians today - are forced by pure capitalism, war is one of the main tools of capitalism, everything is much more linked than it looks on the surface...
...we will have revolutions for sure - what kind and what will be the next "solution" - I don t know...
That is nonsense - capitalism has nothing to do with wars. Certainly some capitalists have benefitted greatly from wars but most would say that war is bad for business and therefore against their self interest (getting back to the theme Zero Talent likes to bring up).
In Syria the problems are caused by the dictator Assad and ISIS. Do you think ISIS is setting up a capitalist society? Certainly not!
Religion is the biggest cause of wars, not capitalism. If we could get rid of religion then we could reduce differences between societies and the cause for many wars would go away immediately. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
Wars are always triggered by authoritarian states. By "big" governments stimulating and exacerbating patriotic feelings, by promoting a nationalistic/religious supremacy, by inventing external threats, by blaming "others" for their own failures.
They use this excuse to reduce civil liberties, to justify the creation of a police state and to strengthen their grip on society.
It is the government protecting its self-interest at its best (while preventing its "subjects" to do it)!
And this has nothing to do with the true free market capitalism, free trade and liberty.
A lot of people, even in this forum, associate the true free market capitalism with US. They are wrong: US is an authoritarian state.
Ferdinand you are unhappy and I understand you. You want revolution. Fine. But you have no idea what to put in place if you succeed. You might only replace your leaders without changing the system (you can even become one of them), or worse: you can easily drive the society in the wrong direction (towards communism, hence even more authoritarianism).
PixelBytes jokes about guillotines on Wall Street, suggesting that Wall Street bears the blame. Wrong!
The root cause is Washington DC and their on-going policy to subsidize Wall Street with our money, by not allowing banks to fail, by "printing" money to keep the stock market artificially up and create an illusion of prosperity.
Wall Street is only reacting to these perverse risk-free incentives, the same way anyone would react to a "free lunch".
The problem is elsewhere.
-
Most off topic discussion ever?!
-
Most off topic discussion ever?!
Clearly.
-
Not sure how politics got into this thread... I have zero idea how that happened. ;)
Funny how big government is always blamed by the right wing. It seems to me that government (at least in the US) is closely tied with big corporate interest as it is usually a revolving door between them. You leave office and you get a corporate job you just passed a bill to give yourself a raise because it is in your self interest and not greed...
-
Not sure how politics got into this thread... I have zero idea how that happened. ;)
Funny how big government is always blamed by the right wing. It seems to me that government (at least in the US) is closely tied with big corporate interest as it is usually a revolving door between them. You leave office and you get a corporate job you just passed a bill to give yourself a raise because it is in your self interest and not greed...
Funny you say that! I blame the "big" government, indeed, but I'm definitely not "right wing".
As I said before, in the absence of a 3rd way, I would rather vote democrat. I believe that, these days, the biggest threat to liberty comes from the neo-cons.
And you are straight to the point. A government bureaucrat is never that do-gooder you think you voted for.
He is and he will always protect his self-interest, before anything else.
This is why the solution can only be to restrict the government interference in the economy, in order to make illegal such corrupt favors, given to special interest groups, all of them based on your money.
I'm no anarchist, either. The government must have an important role, but not in economical matters.
-
..these people that try to migrate to capitalist countries - like Syrians today - are forced by pure capitalism, war is one of the main tools of capitalism, everything is much more linked than it looks on the surface...
...we will have revolutions for sure - what kind and what will be the next "solution" - I don t know...
That is nonsense - capitalism has nothing to do with wars. Certainly some capitalists have benefitted greatly from wars but most would say that war is bad for business and therefore against their self interest (getting back to the theme Zero Talent likes to bring up).
In Syria the problems are caused by the dictator Assad and ISIS. Do you think ISIS is setting up a capitalist society? Certainly not!
Religion is the biggest cause of wars, not capitalism. If we could get rid of religion then we could reduce differences between societies and the cause for many wars would go away immediately. Unfortunately I don't see that happening any time soon.
...unbelievably naive - war in Syria has been caused by USofA,............. same in Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Vietnam...etc. etc.
-
Well, there goes this thread. Politics and religion strikes again. those 2 subjects will Kill any good discussion.
-
Well, there goes this thread. Politics and religion strikes again. those 2 subjects will Kill any good discussion.
I gave you a plus - I will stop
-
Well, there goes this thread. Politics and religion strikes again. those 2 subjects will Kill any good discussion.
SSTK bobbing between 32 and 34 maybe that's the right price. Not $75 a share that's for sure. What do the experts say it's real value should be? I don't understand all those PE ebt beta or whatnot terms.
-
The "Experts" have no better idea than the rest of us and if they did they would be keeping quiet and making squillions. :o
-
Well, there goes this thread. Politics and religion strikes again. those 2 subjects will Kill any good discussion.
SSTK bobbing between 32 and 34 maybe that's the right price. Not $75 a share that's for sure. What do the experts say it's real value should be? I don't understand all those PE ebt beta or whatnot terms.
SSTK is at $31.56 right now.
Dec. 2014, Believing competition from Adobe will pressure growth, Morgan Stanley's Dean Prissman has launched coverage on Shutterstock (NYSE:SSTK) with an Underweight rating and $40 target.
Prissman reports "55% of [surveyed] Shutterstock users indicated they would shift usage from Shutterstock to Adobe Stock if features were offered in the Adobe Creative Cloud that made importing images easier.” His 2016 and 2017 adjusted EBITDA estimates are respectively 5% and 14% below consensus.
A survey of creative pros indicated 25% of those not yet using Creative Cloud plan to adopt it, with 60% planning to do so in the next 12 months.
December 2014, Adobe acquired Fotalia for $800 million.
Shutterstock (SSTK) droped of over 10%, after Adobe (ADBE) announced it's buying competing stock photo marketplace Fotolia. Adobe integrated Fotolia's offerings with Creative Cloud in June 2015, opening Adobe Stock.
The acquisition changes the competitive landscape for the worse and the number put on Fotalia's library made Shutterstock comparatively expensive.
Adobe Stock CC subscribers can pay $10 for 1 image, $30/month for 10 monthly images (unused images get rolled over), and $199/month for 750 images.
August 2015, Shutterstock plunged over 50% in the last 3 months, 57% in the last year. Boom or bust is what Microstock is all about.
Shutterstock and Adobe Fotolia do not own their content, Getty does.
This puts Getty and parts of iStock in the position of control over most of their own goods, while the first two are at the whim of suppliers. That could also explain the bad attitude at iStock towards contributors. They don't care about us and don't think they need to.
-
Well, there goes this thread. Politics and religion strikes again. those 2 subjects will Kill any good discussion.
speaking of kill, don't forget the gun discussion
-
There is plenty of money to be made in the market on the downside, just as much as the upside. You can go long, but you can also go short. Bulls and Bears :o If I had gone short instead of long on some of these biotechs, I would be a lot happier LOL
-
SSTK is now at $30.45 - there was definitely a lot of room to go short on that one.
-
SSTK hit the top ten most shorted stocks on the NYSE a few days ago.
-
My sales this month plummet nicely along the plummet of the shares. Well done Shutterstock. Cant wait for the price cut.
-
SSTK hit the top ten most shorted stocks on the NYSE a few days ago.
I didn't know that - that is a distinction I assume most companies would want to avoid. Now I'm glad I didn't buy any.
-
SSTK hit the top ten most shorted stocks on the NYSE a few days ago.
Interesting. One thing that investors in SSTK will have to keep in mind now is that if the stock starts to go up fast, it may not be for any fundamental reason but because short-sellers are moving to cover their positions. This can make a stock very volatile for reasons which the average investor does not perceive.
-
SSTK hit the top ten most shorted stocks on the NYSE a few days ago.
I didn't know that - that is a distinction I assume most companies would want to avoid. Now I'm glad I didn't buy any.
the only ppl who would want a stock to be shorted are those aiming for the company to fall or go broke so they make a big profit when they have to buy back the shares they borrowed from the brokers.
so really, it is not in any company's interest to be top of short selling list,
more like they are signing their own death warrant
as the ppl are aiming to make a killing like vultures waiting for the carcasses.
very unethical ppl aiming to make a lot of money from an over valued stock already in a free fall.
-
SSTK hit the top ten most shorted stocks on the NYSE a few days ago.
I didn't know that - that is a distinction I assume most companies would want to avoid. Now I'm glad I didn't buy any.
the only ppl who would want a stock to be shorted are those aiming for the company to fall or go broke so they make a big profit when they have to buy back the shares they borrowed from the brokers.
so really, it is not in any company's interest to be top of short selling list,
more like they are signing their own death warrant
as the ppl are aiming to make a killing like vultures waiting for the carcasses.
very unethical ppl aiming to make a lot of money from an over valued stock already in a free fall.
What percentage of people that short stocks make money from it? I think its much less than people think. I was never very good at it :) Some people use spread bets to short rather than sell a stock when they would have a big capital gains liability. Then the spread betting companies have to short the stock to cover their liability. So it often isn't the case that people shorting a stock want the company to fail or go broke and many of thiose that do are little more than gamblers that usually lose their money.
-
very unethical ppl aiming to make a lot of money from an over valued stock already in a free fall.
What percentage of people that short stocks make money from it? I think its much less than people think. I was never very good at it :) Some people use spread bets to short rather than sell a stock when they would have a big capital gains liability. Then the spread betting companies have to short the stock to cover their liability. So it often isn't the case that people shorting a stock want the company to fail or go broke and many of thiose that do are little more than gamblers that usually lose their money.
all in all, looking at the 85 % to the right of this page, and shorting ,
it proves ss made their greatest mistake by licking the shareholders shoes, instead of thinking of
the contributors who made them top close to 100% many times in the past on this page to the right.
now they know ss made their worst investment move by going public
and all for greed. it will take alot of guts now for Oringer to say no to the shareholders
and pull everything for the contributors to come back to bring them back up to 95% ER
a hard lesson to learn , as they say, why f*ck it up when there is nothing wrong with the machine.
and with ss go down the tube microstock too
-
http://www.moneyflowindex.org/shutterstock-inc-sstk-discloses-sec-form-4-insider-buying-jonathan-oringer-buys-100000-shares/3117418/ (http://www.moneyflowindex.org/shutterstock-inc-sstk-discloses-sec-form-4-insider-buying-jonathan-oringer-buys-100000-shares/3117418/)
Jonathan Oringer , CEO of Shutterstock, Inc. purchased 100,000 shares on Aug 27, 2015. The Insider buying transaction was disclosed on Aug 27, 2015 to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The shares were purchased at $32.56 per share for a total value of $3,256,000.00.
-
I don't think that the poll results here during the lowest selling part of the year mean a lot, especially when our earnings will get slowly diluted with the huge number of new images on SS every week. Still don't see any real competition for SS with microstock. If they do try and take on Getty for the higher priced market, things could get interesting.
-
I don't think that the poll results here during the lowest selling part of the year mean a lot, especially when our earnings will get slowly diluted with the huge number of new images on SS every week. Still don't see any real competition for SS with microstock. If they do try and take on Getty for the higher priced market, things could get interesting.
now that would be interesting. i was thinking about ss takin on getty on the higher priced mkt, but if they do, it would for sure bring back a lot of the old contributors ... and or new ones too... with less of the same old same old over stocked stuff.
and of course, a tougher curatorship for that, hopefully
but i don't know if ss has the stuff to take on getty...
it would be like a cheapmotel taking on exps ac hotel side of the mktplace
-
I've said many times any site...ANY site who comes in and offers a 50/50 Split across the board weather it's SS of FT or whoever could control the market as far as contributors. And the competition would dry up and go home. I for one would love to upload to one fair site instead of 9 frustrating Ones that are ripping us off and getting wealthy doing it. The time saved alone would be worth it, IF time is money and to me, It is.
Adobe could very easily have a complete monopoly if they wanted and that would justify a 50/50 split. If they did that Everyone would bail out everywhere else. But. It would probably be exclusive. Im In. Maybe Im just tired But....I would be in. And vice versa, If SS offered this, same deal.
-
[url]http://www.moneyflowindex.org/shutterstock-inc-sstk-discloses-sec-form-4-insider-buying-jonathan-oringer-buys-100000-shares/3117418/[/url] ([url]http://www.moneyflowindex.org/shutterstock-inc-sstk-discloses-sec-form-4-insider-buying-jonathan-oringer-buys-100000-shares/3117418/[/url])
Jonathan Oringer , CEO of Shutterstock, Inc. purchased 100,000 shares on Aug 27, 2015. The Insider buying transaction was disclosed on Aug 27, 2015 to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The shares were purchased at $32.56 per share for a total value of $3,256,000.00.
If I were Him I would buy the company back asap and go Private again.
-
I've said many times any site...ANY site who comes in and offers a 50/50 Split across the board weather it's SS of FT or whoever could control the market as far as contributors. And the competition would dry up and go home. I for one would love to upload to one fair site instead of 9 frustrating Ones that are ripping us off and getting wealthy doing it. The time saved alone would be worth it, IF time is money and to me, It is.
Adobe could very easily have a complete monopoly if they wanted and that would justify a 50/50 split. If they did that Everyone would bail out everywhere else. But. It would probably be exclusive. Im In. Maybe Im just tired But....I would be in. And vice versa, If SS offered this, same deal.
YES! YES! The magic formula is Advertising, fair royalties like the 50/50, and a fair price $7- 12ea with an option for $3 for blog and simple vectors I think that was the price when iStock was at its best... They had an amazing collection of images/vectors you could not get anywhere else
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If I were Him I would buy the company back asap and go Private again.
my thoughts exactly. he just might, after all his tongue must be already getting tired of licking the other major shareholders' you know what??? 8)
his going back private would be to his own sweet revenge having learnt a harsh lesson leaving a real bad taste in his mouth ...literally. ;D
-
Why would he do that? He could just take the money and enjoy the rest of his life without having to bother about microstock ever again.
-
...ANY site who comes in and offers a 50/50 Split across the board weather it's SS of FT or whoever could control the market as far as contributors
What about Featurepics? They pay 50% and have no subs, but don't seem to get very far presumably due to not enough marketing. I really like them just wish sales were higher.
-
Why would he do that? He could just take the money and enjoy the rest of his life without having to bother about microstock ever again.
I think he has moved beyond money now and is probably more concerned about his/shutterstock legacy... But I'm just speculating as usual... :D
-
Why would he do that? He could just take the money and enjoy the rest of his life without having to bother about microstock ever again.
Indeed! It makes you wonder where is that famous "greed", very dear to some on this forum ;)
Well said VB inc. I completely agree, however I also think greed played a large part in the equation.
This move only highlights how many risks an entrepreneur takes to keep his business afloat and how some spectators take those risks for granted.
-
I've said many times any site...ANY site who comes in and offers a 50/50 Split across the board weather it's SS of FT or whoever could control the market as far as contributors. And the competition would dry up and go home. I for one would love to upload to one fair site instead of 9 frustrating Ones that are ripping us off and getting wealthy doing it. The time saved alone would be worth it, IF time is money and to me, It is.
Adobe could very easily have a complete monopoly if they wanted and that would justify a 50/50 split. If they did that Everyone would bail out everywhere else. But. It would probably be exclusive. Im In. Maybe Im just tired But....I would be in. And vice versa, If SS offered this, same deal.
50/50 split for exclusive you are right, they could take over and kill the competition at once.
-
I've said many times any site...ANY site who comes in and offers a 50/50 Split across the board weather it's SS of FT or whoever could control the market as far as contributors. And the competition would dry up and go home. I for one would love to upload to one fair site instead of 9 frustrating Ones that are ripping us off and getting wealthy doing it. The time saved alone would be worth it, IF time is money and to me, It is.
Adobe could very easily have a complete monopoly if they wanted and that would justify a 50/50 split. If they did that Everyone would bail out everywhere else. But. It would probably be exclusive. Im In. Maybe Im just tired But....I would be in. And vice versa, If SS offered this, same deal.
[/quote)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For many years I was thinking exactly in your terms but today I am not at all sure. SS is not the company it was. After going public the nickel and dime squad moved in and they seem to be turning the place upside down in order to please the shareholders. The otherwise so stable SS we have come to know/work with is fading.
plain language, I don't trust it anymore, seems to wobble its way through the days.
Adobe/FT? well who knows its early days yet but so far I have trebbled my already good earnings over there. If its because of Adobe or not I don't know but right now the place is buzzing and most people seem to be happy.
One thing is sure, no agency is going to do any favours benefiting members if anything we have to be happy not getting cut down any further and that goes for the entire industry whatever model.
-
SS is not the company it was. After going public the nickel and dime squad moved in and they seem to be turning the place upside down in order to please the shareholders. The otherwise so stable SS we have come to know/work with is fading.
plain language, I don't trust it anymore, seems to wobble its way through the days.
wa, my thoughts exactly. don't trust ss anymore for long-term as they brown nose shareholders who is not interested in growth, only vulture mentality of quick profit and carcass kill.
oringer can do something incredible by buying back all the shares shorting and not only push the price down to make a final glory killing by having to replace the shares shorted, and also to announce ss is no longer public.
this will resurrect confidence with contributors and i am sure they will be back to the close 100% ER we used to see with ss.
until that happens, no one will hold their breath for ss. looking at your monthly earnings this past month(s) is enough to make you spit blood.
-
I've said many times any site...ANY site who comes in and offers a 50/50 Split across the board weather it's SS of FT or whoever could control the market as far as contributors. And the competition would dry up and go home. I for one would love to upload to one fair site instead of 9 frustrating Ones that are ripping us off and getting wealthy doing it. The time saved alone would be worth it, IF time is money and to me, It is.
Adobe could very easily have a complete monopoly if they wanted and that would justify a 50/50 split. If they did that Everyone would bail out everywhere else. But. It would probably be exclusive. Im In. Maybe Im just tired But....I would be in. And vice versa, If SS offered this, same deal.
50/50 split for exclusive you are right, they could take over and kill the competition at once.
And if they did kill the competition, you would be lucky to get 20%. Lots of sites have offered 50/50 or better and they haven't made contributors dump the sites that pay us a much smaller cut. So I doubt it would work and it would probably be bad for us to only have 1 site anyway.
-
I've said many times any site...ANY site who comes in and offers a 50/50 Split across the board weather it's SS of FT or whoever could control the market as far as contributors. And the competition would dry up and go home. I for one would love to upload to one fair site instead of 9 frustrating Ones that are ripping us off and getting wealthy doing it. The time saved alone would be worth it, IF time is money and to me, It is.
Adobe could very easily have a complete monopoly if they wanted and that would justify a 50/50 split. If they did that Everyone would bail out everywhere else. But. It would probably be exclusive. Im In. Maybe Im just tired But....I would be in. And vice versa, If SS offered this, same deal.
50/50 split for exclusive you are right, they could take over and kill the competition at once.
And if they did kill the competition, you would be lucky to get 20%. Lots of sites have offered 50/50 or better and they haven't made contributors dump the sites that pay us a much smaller cut. So I doubt it would work and it would probably be bad for us to only have 1 site anyway.
Yes, There is That. the sites that did offer 50 were not real Players in the game. Adobe and SS are. Big difference I think.
-
Dreamstime was a real player that used to pay 50%, Pond5 is for video and would be for stills if we all left the lower paying sites and just used them. Alamy is a real player paying 50%, I have no doubt we could all just use these sites and make more money but it will never happen. Its easy to blame the sites but the real reason we are stuck with sites paying 15 to 30% is all down to us. I found that out after deleting most of my istock portfolio only to see most of the big non-exclusive contributors uploading their limit every week despite getting less than 20%.