0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Did a quick read and just want to say for everyone to remember this!IPO is a "SALE"!Quote from: ruxpriencdiamRudy said it already and they had it on the news this morning about what an IPO is because of Facebook going public and they said no matter what an IPO is a Sale.First time offer to sell to the public.Founders and Early investors are cashing out.and it is a sale.Here is what some of the investing companies from Wall Street say about IPO's.Why does a company go public?Companies issue stock to the public for many reasons including: Needing growth capital for the business Founding investors selling a portion of their original ownership Paying off debt Increasing exposure for the company Improving company's ability to recruit upper management through stock options Ability to issue further stock to facilitate takeovers using company stockIPOs generally favor the brokerage firms that underwrite these issues and the companies that go public. A close second are institutional investors that buy the stock at its offering price and then sell it in the afternoon, profiting from the transaction. By pricing the shares below their real value, institutions are able to make a quick buck off unsuspecting individual investors. Unless you are a big institution, it's unlikely that you would be able to buy shares in an IPO even if you wanted to. Only those with the deepest pockets representing the widest interests get access to these opportunities. That's not such a bad thing for individual investors.Sure, being in on the ground floor might mean a quick 15 to 20 percent return on your investment once it starts trading. However, studies have shown that many IPOs tend to trade below their offering price one year after going public. Investors might be better to focus on buying stocks that were IPOs a year earlier. Coca Cola went public in 1919 at $40 and was trading at $19 a year later. That is quite a difference.IPOs do from time to time grow up to be extremely large companies and so, like any other investment vehicle, you should do careful research before investing. If it's a stock worth buying and holding for the long term, whether you buy it today or in a year is of little consequence in the end. Why Go Public?Going public raises cash, and usually a lot of it. Being publicly traded also opens many financial doors: Because of the increased scrutiny, public companies can usually get better rates when they issue debt. As long as there is market demand, a public company can always issue more stock. Thus, mergers and acquisitions are easier to do because stock can be issued as part of the deal. Trading in the open markets means liquidity. This makes it possible to implement things like employee stock ownership plans, which help to attract top talent.
Rudy said it already and they had it on the news this morning about what an IPO is because of Facebook going public and they said no matter what an IPO is a Sale.First time offer to sell to the public.Founders and Early investors are cashing out.and it is a sale.Here is what some of the investing companies from Wall Street say about IPO's.Why does a company go public?Companies issue stock to the public for many reasons including: Needing growth capital for the business Founding investors selling a portion of their original ownership Paying off debt Increasing exposure for the company Improving company's ability to recruit upper management through stock options Ability to issue further stock to facilitate takeovers using company stockIPOs generally favor the brokerage firms that underwrite these issues and the companies that go public. A close second are institutional investors that buy the stock at its offering price and then sell it in the afternoon, profiting from the transaction. By pricing the shares below their real value, institutions are able to make a quick buck off unsuspecting individual investors. Unless you are a big institution, it's unlikely that you would be able to buy shares in an IPO even if you wanted to. Only those with the deepest pockets representing the widest interests get access to these opportunities. That's not such a bad thing for individual investors.Sure, being in on the ground floor might mean a quick 15 to 20 percent return on your investment once it starts trading. However, studies have shown that many IPOs tend to trade below their offering price one year after going public. Investors might be better to focus on buying stocks that were IPOs a year earlier. Coca Cola went public in 1919 at $40 and was trading at $19 a year later. That is quite a difference.IPOs do from time to time grow up to be extremely large companies and so, like any other investment vehicle, you should do careful research before investing. If it's a stock worth buying and holding for the long term, whether you buy it today or in a year is of little consequence in the end. Why Go Public?Going public raises cash, and usually a lot of it. Being publicly traded also opens many financial doors: Because of the increased scrutiny, public companies can usually get better rates when they issue debt. As long as there is market demand, a public company can always issue more stock. Thus, mergers and acquisitions are easier to do because stock can be issued as part of the deal. Trading in the open markets means liquidity. This makes it possible to implement things like employee stock ownership plans, which help to attract top talent.
Quote from: ruxpriencdiam on May 16, 2012, 22:09Did a quick read and just want to say for everyone to remember this!IPO is a "SALE"!Quote from: ruxpriencdiamRudy said it already and they had it on the news this morning about what an IPO is because of Facebook going public and they said no matter what an IPO is a Sale.First time offer to sell to the public.Founders and Early investors are cashing out.and it is a sale.Here is what some of the investing companies from Wall Street say about IPO's.Why does a company go public?Companies issue stock to the public for many reasons including: Needing growth capital for the business Founding investors selling a portion of their original ownership Paying off debt Increasing exposure for the company Improving company's ability to recruit upper management through stock options Ability to issue further stock to facilitate takeovers using company stockIPOs generally favor the brokerage firms that underwrite these issues and the companies that go public. A close second are institutional investors that buy the stock at its offering price and then sell it in the afternoon, profiting from the transaction. By pricing the shares below their real value, institutions are able to make a quick buck off unsuspecting individual investors. Unless you are a big institution, it's unlikely that you would be able to buy shares in an IPO even if you wanted to. Only those with the deepest pockets representing the widest interests get access to these opportunities. That's not such a bad thing for individual investors.Sure, being in on the ground floor might mean a quick 15 to 20 percent return on your investment once it starts trading. However, studies have shown that many IPOs tend to trade below their offering price one year after going public. Investors might be better to focus on buying stocks that were IPOs a year earlier. Coca Cola went public in 1919 at $40 and was trading at $19 a year later. That is quite a difference.IPOs do from time to time grow up to be extremely large companies and so, like any other investment vehicle, you should do careful research before investing. If it's a stock worth buying and holding for the long term, whether you buy it today or in a year is of little consequence in the end. Why Go Public?Going public raises cash, and usually a lot of it. Being publicly traded also opens many financial doors: Because of the increased scrutiny, public companies can usually get better rates when they issue debt. As long as there is market demand, a public company can always issue more stock. Thus, mergers and acquisitions are easier to do because stock can be issued as part of the deal. Trading in the open markets means liquidity. This makes it possible to implement things like employee stock ownership plans, which help to attract top talent.Excellent info. This will be a huge game changer. I have been in a few boards myself and know the effect that they can have on a company. I predict that a board would immediately push for differentiated subscription models (for higher the end customers that Istock is currently taking all the sales from) and exclusive content to differentiate against Istock. Basically all the things that Jon was against in the start (2005), but that is market reality today. This could make Shutterstock the absolut go-to agency over Istock in couple of years if they do these changes. If they also continued to acquire a few smaller agencies here and there to serve as a mass-distribution platform such as with bigstockphoto.com they are in for a true winner and would have the basis for a tempting exclusive offering (from the perspective of the photographer).
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?
Excellent info. This will be a huge game changer. I have been in a few boards myself and know the effect that they can have on a company. I predict that a board would immediately push for differentiated subscription models (for higher the end customers that Istock is currently taking all the sales from) and exclusive content to differentiate against Istock. Basically all the things that Jon was against in the start (2005), but that is market reality today. This could make Shutterstock the absolut go-to agency over Istock in couple of years if they do these changes. If they also continued to acquire a few smaller agencies here and there to serve as a mass-distribution platform such as with bigstockphoto.com they are in for a true winner and would have the basis for a tempting exclusive offering (from the perspective of the photographer).
I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?Best Y
Quote from: Yuri_Arcurs on May 22, 2012, 04:06I know full design studios that only have a subscription to SS and that is it. They would and could easily spend about 10 times more on stock images, but they don't need to, because they got most of their demand covered with their subscription. SS has lured the customers in on a simple "as is" kind of business model. Now it is time to make the real money. They are sitting on a gold mine. I predict that if SS opens the opportunity for exclusive content in a premium subscription package they just doubled their revenue in a year or two's time. And further more. I will bet a that this will happen. Anybody want to bet?I'd take that bet. SS are winning the greater share of the microstock market by not making the same mistakes as others (as Drugal also pointed out). 'Exclusivity' of images or artists has little or no value to most buyers and they'd prefer not to pay a premium for it. SS's business model does not allow for different price levels without destroying the simple formula that has proved so successful. Note that FT seems to spend most of it's time trying to reverse or minimise price differentials.The 'acquisition' referred to in the IPO can only be targetted against either FT or DT. Any other lesser agency could be bought with existing cash. With Istock positioning themselves at the 'mid-stock' price level it should ensure that SS will enjoy total domination of the true microstock market. They don't need to do anything drastic as they are bound to win by default.
I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle
Quote from: wut on May 22, 2012, 10:51I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...
Quote from: click_click on May 22, 2012, 11:04Quote from: wut on May 22, 2012, 10:51I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...yeah but it wont be, too hard to police and control, unfortunately.
Funny this! all of a sudden this entire forum is full of half-assssed financial wizzkids and accountant. soon we dont have to take pics, we just invest, right.
Quote from: lagereek on May 22, 2012, 11:20Quote from: click_click on May 22, 2012, 11:04Quote from: wut on May 22, 2012, 10:51I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...yeah but it wont be, too hard to police and control, unfortunately.It would have to be image exclusivity. Other sites mange it, people have exclusive images with Getty, so why not? It can't be that difficult to police. Some people will always break the rules but then they get thrown out.
Quote from: lagereek on May 22, 2012, 15:46Funny this! all of a sudden this entire forum is full of half-assssed financial wizzkids and accountant. soon we dont have to take pics, we just invest, right. Sure beats working for a living. Thats what the richest ppl int the world do too.
Quote from: sharpshot on May 22, 2012, 16:44Quote from: lagereek on May 22, 2012, 11:20Quote from: click_click on May 22, 2012, 11:04Quote from: wut on May 22, 2012, 10:51I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...yeah but it wont be, too hard to police and control, unfortunately.It would have to be image exclusivity. Other sites mange it, people have exclusive images with Getty, so why not? It can't be that difficult to police. Some people will always break the rules but then they get thrown out.I'd go for full exclusivity. It wouldn't change anythin or at least much for me otherwise (if you look at the reasons I stated). Hell I'd even go exclusive with IS if it would become my no1 earner (that's really a no-brainer earnjngs wise)I'd
Quote from: wut on May 22, 2012, 18:18Quote from: sharpshot on May 22, 2012, 16:44Quote from: lagereek on May 22, 2012, 11:20Quote from: click_click on May 22, 2012, 11:04Quote from: wut on May 22, 2012, 10:51I hope Yuri is right! I'd jump into exclusivity and higher priced collections wit both feet. I'm getting tired of diferent reviewing standards etc, constant hassle(Image) exclusivity that is... Hopefully...yeah but it wont be, too hard to police and control, unfortunately.It would have to be image exclusivity. Other sites mange it, people have exclusive images with Getty, so why not? It can't be that difficult to police. Some people will always break the rules but then they get thrown out.I'd go for full exclusivity. It wouldn't change anythin or at least much for me otherwise (if you look at the reasons I stated). Hell I'd even go exclusive with IS if it would become my no1 earner (that's really a no-brainer earnjngs wise)I'd I would be very wary, having seen what can happen with istock. There isn't much sense in going fully exclusive with a site to earn more and then find that they cut commissions and make so many changes that can be detrimental to earnings. Going fully exclusive is a hard decision to reverse. Having to upload again on the other sites if it goes wrong can't be much fun. Image exclusivity is much more attractive to me.