MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SSTK Q2 2017 poor results  (Read 14835 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 02, 2017, 12:34 »
0
Shutterstock released their second quarter 2017 results and they are miserable, which is why they're down 17% on NYSE today.

Their results in a nutshell:

Revenue increased 8% to $134.0 million
Income from operations decreased 69% to $3.3 million
Net income decreased 58% to $3.1 million
Adjusted EBITDA decreased 19% to $18.3 million
Diluted EPS decreased 55% to $0.09 per share
Key Operating Metrics             

Paid downloads decreased 2%
Revenue per download increased 9%
Image collection expanded 57% to 144.7 million images
Video collection expanded 55% to 7.6 million clips

More on: http://investor.shutterstock.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=251362&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2290950

Struck by their explanation of the plummeted income from operations: "driven by an increase in operating expenses primarily due to higher royalty costs associated with increased levels of revenue, increased spend in marketing and increased administrative expenses." My royalties at SS are the lowest during the last four or 5 months in the last 2 years, despite constant and significant increase of my portfolio.

Similarly, explanation for low net income: "due to the decline in operating performance and a higher-effective tax rate, which was partly offset by non-operating transactional gains related to foreign currency as compared to the second quarter of 2016." Time to start worrying about the "leading global technology company offering a creative platform for high-quality assets, tools and services", with their own outlook in mind:

"The Company's current expectations for the full year 2017, reduced from those previously announced, are as follows:

Revenue of $535-545 million, down from $545-560 million
Income from Operations of $30-40 million, down from $47-52 million
Adjusted EBITDA of $85-$95 million, down from $105-110 million
Non-cash equity-based compensation expense of approximately $30 million
Effective tax rate in mid-30's%
Capital Expenditures of approximately $45 million, including capitalized labor of approximately $20 million"


Bad Company

« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2017, 12:45 »
+16
just hope SS doesn't send us an email- "Dear Contributors in an effort to increase your sales we will need to reduce your commission rates to spend the additional savings on more marketing"  :(


derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2017, 13:36 »
+3
Not surprised at all!

drd

« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2017, 13:43 »
+13
Shutterstock released their second quarter 2017 results and they are miserable, which is why they're down 17% on NYSE today.

This data is Second Quarter 2017 highlights as compared to Second Quarter 2016. Which means within one year they have almost doubled their image and video collection, but revenue is up by only 8%. The market is oversaturated with cheap images.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 14:02 by drd »

Shelma1

« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2017, 13:46 »
+19
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down. So fewer dls and 57% more images means we're not crazy when we complain about a huge decrease in sales. Doesn't look good for the future.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4093753-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-q2-2017-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=3

drd

« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2017, 13:54 »
+2
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down. So fewer dls and 57% more images means we're not crazy when we complain about a huge decrease in sales. Doesn't look good for the future.

...and add to that an 11% customer base growth.

« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2017, 14:49 »
+3
did they say how many of the vultures short their stocks in anticipation for a killing ???
or how many of those who insisted on $cr*wing the contributors have already taken profit and now gone to another stock
to cannibalize???

not to forget their employees benefit. time for another bunch of good husbands to announce they are going to "quit" to  "spend more time with family"  ;)

Bad Company

« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2017, 15:15 »
+3
Interesting salaries there- plus $10,000 to $30,000 yearly bonuses...

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Shutterstock/Salary

ShadySue

« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2017, 15:49 »
+1
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down.
Isn't it better for them when the buyers take fewer dls from their subs, as they haven't had to pay out to contributors.
Unless they don't renew.
But I see they're going to start smaller packages, presumably charging more per dl. Are they going to share that with the contributors?

dpimborough

« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2017, 16:08 »
+2
Stand by for a good shafting it'll be coming soon  :'(

I reckon it'll make what iS/Gty did to us look like a walk in the park.

Shelma1

« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2017, 16:33 »
+5
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down.
Isn't it better for them when the buyers take fewer dls from their subs, as they haven't had to pay out to contributors.
Unless they don't renew.
But I see they're going to start smaller packages, presumably charging more per dl. Are they going to share that with the contributors?

They're already offering smaller subs packs, which is what led to fewer dls per buyer. Whatever changes they're making aren't having positive results for anyone, it seems...not even them.

« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2017, 21:30 »
+3
just hope SS doesn't send us an email- "Dear Contributors in an effort to increase your sales we will need to reduce your commission rates to spend the additional savings on more marketing"  :(

Predictions all based on stock earnings reports, doom and gloom, while Getty tells us how money won't make us happy as they slash our commissions. Then change and discount us more. Predictions are not reality, IS has stabbed us in the heart, stole our promised contracts, and some people keep defending their raping us? How many times have we read the same about SS and never had a cut? More than that, they have added new ways to market our work.

IS flat rate subs on StinkStock, or does everyone just accept that without question because the * deal has been going on for so long.

Maybe people who don't like SS should go sign up for Deposit Photos and get the real feeling of trouble and degrading treatment.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2017, 00:22 »
+2
did they say how many of the vultures short their stocks in anticipation for a killing ???
or how many of those who insisted on $cr*wing the contributors have already taken profit and now gone to another stock
to cannibalize???

not to forget their employees benefit. time for another bunch of good husbands to announce they are going to "quit" to  "spend more time with family"  ;)

quoting: Cannibalizing other sites!!   and thats exactly whats happening, there are many examples without mentioning any names!

« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2017, 01:03 »
+2
Oh dear, that's bad news. It's pretty much the last man standing among the sites I've supplied. I guess we're approaching "game over".

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2017, 01:08 »
+1
Oh dear, that's bad news. It's pretty much the last man standing among the sites I've supplied. I guess we're approaching "game over".

Not sure Simon?? something happened there. Yesterday it was like being back to normal over 100 bucks in daily earnings and without any EL's. Something might have changed??  hang in there

« Reply #15 on: August 03, 2017, 01:22 »
+1
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

dpimborough

« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2017, 02:23 »
+1
It's more likely Oringer will be ousted in a corporate coup and replaced with a bean counter
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 13:29 by Sammy the Cat »


« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2017, 02:36 »
+1
Poor by shareholder standards, but they're pretty decent. I don't think they can keep growing the way they did since the market is struggle to grow any larger than it already is. I just hope they don't cut contributor rates in the future.

« Reply #18 on: August 03, 2017, 03:33 »
+3
The boat is sinking....? :'(

MxR

« Reply #19 on: August 03, 2017, 03:42 »
+4
Is exacly same bars like mine but ten times higer!

drd

« Reply #20 on: August 03, 2017, 04:17 »
0
Poor by shareholder standards, but they're pretty decent. I don't think they can keep growing the way they did since the market is struggle to grow any larger than it already is. I just hope they don't cut contributor rates in the future.

The market doesn't grow as the buying power hasn't changed since few years back. Lowering contributor rates would be just another shoot in the foot as sales numbers will not increase, whatever they forecast!

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #21 on: August 03, 2017, 06:57 »
0
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

How do we know GI isnt already a big player/shareholder?  it sure is almost a mirror behaviour the way the sites performed lately and with their complete absence saying nothing.
As far as Jon buying it back?  no way I know Jon and he's got his fingers in so many other pies at the moment its unthinkable. I would think this is his last worry.

SS was probably the one site which kept most people going. I was a sucker for it myself up to a couple of years back uploading and uploading as if there was no tomorrow. Oh well. :)

« Reply #22 on: August 03, 2017, 07:12 »
+4
My reading is they have lost sight of the core part of their business ..people need to be able to find images they want to buy and they have lost control of costs......they have been seduced by the consultant talk of shiny new products with higher margins.

« Reply #23 on: August 03, 2017, 07:30 »
0
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down. So fewer dls and 57% more images means we're not crazy when we complain about a huge decrease in sales. Doesn't look good for the future.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4093753-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-q2-2017-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=3
I'm not sure anyone said reporting falling sales was crazy just that given the number of uploads and now flat demand you don't need some complex theory about penalising certain contributors to explain it.

« Reply #24 on: August 03, 2017, 07:38 »
0
144.7 million images X 57% annual growth = 1 billion images in less than 5 years.  They had less than 5 million when I started. 

We need to figure our how to compete in a billion image environment.  Or accept being buried.     


« Reply #25 on: August 03, 2017, 08:01 »
0
The boat is sinking....? :'(

That's a nice income!  May I ask how many images you have on Shutterstock?

« Reply #26 on: August 03, 2017, 08:06 »
+3
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down.
Isn't it better for them when the buyers take fewer dls from their subs, as they haven't had to pay out to contributors.
Unless they don't renew.
But I see they're going to start smaller packages, presumably charging more per dl. Are they going to share that with the contributors?

They're already offering smaller subs packs, which is what led to fewer dls per buyer. Whatever changes they're making aren't having positive results for anyone, it seems...not even them.

The drop in royalties would explain a lot via shifting the search to those with lower share (38 cents vs. newbies making 28 cents or whatever).  In fact based on the numbers presented here it makes the picture of "overnight" drop in sales much clearer as to what happened.


« Reply #27 on: August 03, 2017, 08:44 »
+3
Just got an email from SS about what to shoot this month ....their management team no doubt is high on stockholder's lists

JaenStock

  • Bad images can sell.
« Reply #28 on: August 03, 2017, 08:47 »
+9
I received a mail from shutter and said to shot tons of isolated marijuana images...

wds

« Reply #29 on: August 03, 2017, 08:59 »
0
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down. So fewer dls and 57% more images means we're not crazy when we complain about a huge decrease in sales. Doesn't look good for the future.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4093753-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-q2-2017-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=3

So if downloads are down....where are the customers going?...another site(s)?

« Reply #30 on: August 03, 2017, 09:04 »
0
...and according to this phone conference, the number of subscription dls per buyer dropped and dls are down. So fewer dls and 57% more images means we're not crazy when we complain about a huge decrease in sales. Doesn't look good for the future.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4093753-shutterstocks-sstk-ceo-jonathan-oringer-q2-2017-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=3

So if downloads are down....where are the customers going?...another site(s)?
Thats what we don't know....is it an industry wide problem or are SS competitors taking market share? Personally I don't see much increase in competitors I believe others have

« Reply #31 on: August 03, 2017, 11:34 »
0
So if downloads are down....where are the customers going?...another site(s)?

Customers are not going anywhere. They're canceling their subscriptions or stopped downloading on demand images.

There has been a number of factors recently that contributes to this. One is the recent demonetization of a lot of videos by Google on YouTube. Some of these content creators used to be customers and because of the demonetization, we lost quite a few downloaders. Second is the slowdown of technology startups in the last two year or so. Venture funding has dried up in Silicon Valley and other parts of the the US and a lot of startups are struggling to stay afloat.

Jawbone is dead. Fitbit is struggling. Snapchat is struggling. Blue Apron is struggling. Pebble is dead. A lot of darling companies that used to be high profile a couple years ago are struggling or on its deathbed. Without venture funding, there are lot of companies looking to cut budget.

Of course, we also have the advancement of cameras on smartphones. Who needs to buy every day images when you can take it with your phone?
« Last Edit: August 03, 2017, 11:37 by Minsc »

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #32 on: August 03, 2017, 12:15 »
+3
Quote
Customers are not going anywhere. They're canceling their subscriptions or stopped downloading on demand images.

Would you also say that it's a factor that since the images are RF, some clients choose to re-use some images for different projects and eventually they already have a large selection of images at their disposal that there's no real business need to purchase new licenses? Perhaps if they need a new type of image not found anywhere then they'll search but otherwise just look through their archives.

« Reply #33 on: August 03, 2017, 12:22 »
+1
So when Trump reignites the US economy we can start rubbing our hands together and putting down a deposit on a Porsche  ;D

« Reply #34 on: August 03, 2017, 15:13 »
0
Quote
Customers are not going anywhere. They're canceling their subscriptions or stopped downloading on demand images.

Would you also say that it's a factor that since the images are RF, some clients choose to re-use some images for different projects and eventually they already have a large selection of images at their disposal that there's no real business need to purchase new licenses? Perhaps if they need a new type of image not found anywhere then they'll search but otherwise just look through their archives.

That's also a factor. I took advantage of the 25 downloads a day to fill my archive on a number of occasions. There are still situations where I need to download new images, so we kept our subscription.

For a public company like SS, they need new customers, not just reduce churn. I think they're having a hard time with both.

« Reply #35 on: August 03, 2017, 15:15 »
0
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #36 on: August 03, 2017, 15:45 »
+2
Just forget Oringer buying back SS!  why should he? he is worth over a billion dollars and towards the end just before leaving he was totally exhausted and burnt out and thats according to himself.

Its exactly the same story as was with IS the beancounters moved in ( in the case of IS it was Getty) the rest is history. Some of us here remember the incredible difference around 2008-9 or something when they took over. Its no doom and gloom scenario but thats the way it goes.


« Reply #37 on: August 03, 2017, 15:57 »
+1
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???
Getty are millions in debt they're buying nothing.

« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2017, 16:02 »
+2
Just forget Oringer buying back SS!  why should he? he is worth over a billion dollars and towards the end just before leaving he was totally exhausted and burnt out and thats according to himself.


. "I wasnt even aware of SS going public until I joined this forum  so steady on buddy. ::)"

« Reply #39 on: August 03, 2017, 16:06 »
+1
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???
Getty are millions in debt they're buying nothing.
Getty are owned by a hedge fund, they would do the buying, not Getty.  They would probably saddle SS with debt like they did with Getty.  It wouldn't surprise me if it happened, just look how much money the hedge fund that originally bought Getty made.

« Reply #40 on: August 03, 2017, 16:37 »
+1
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???
Getty are millions in debt they're buying nothing.
Getty are owned by a hedge fund, they would do the buying, not Getty.  They would probably saddle SS with debt like they did with Getty.  It wouldn't surprise me if it happened, just look how much money the hedge fund that originally bought Getty made.
I stand corrected on that one ;-). Though Oringer still owns 46% of SS I believe and is CEO so hes hardly just walked off into the sunset. A more likely scenario to me is that SS continues to go on OKish with a more realistic stock price and expectations...boring I know.

« Reply #41 on: August 03, 2017, 17:03 »
0
It does seem highly likely that we will end up paying if they can't keep their shareholders happy.  The best case scenario might be for the share price to collapse and Oringer take the business private again.  Things like that never seem to happen to microstock sites.  My fear is that a hedge fund, possibly the same one that owns Getty, might see this as an opportunity.  SS was the one site that kept me motivated with microstock but that clanged when they took over BigStock and cut commissions and then announced their IPO.

yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???
Getty are millions in debt they're buying nothing.

Right Getty can't afford their own debt, and the interest, let alone buy more of the competition.

Jon still owns the company 51% last I looked. He still owns the company.

He gets paid in stock, salary is $1 a year. He doesn't need to spend to buy back anything.

    Revenue increased 8% to $134.0 million
    Income from operations decreased 69% to $3.3 million
    Net income decreased 58% to $3.1 million
    Adjusted EBITDA decreased 19% to $18.3 million
    Diluted EPS decreased 55% to $0.09 per share

Key Operating Metrics             

    Paid downloads decreased 2%
    Revenue per download increased 9%
    Image collection expanded 57% to 144.7 million images
    Video collection expanded 55% to 7.6 million clips

There's that RPD that almost everyone claims means something in Micro?
And there's why our sales are down, competition, 55 and 57% increase in competition. Of course we'll be selling less and making less.

The part SS is missing is trying to win the race to the bottom, by cutting staff, reducing advertising, slowing growth and cutting our commissions. They are investing and diversifying. This is long term growth unlike most of the rest who are just bailing water from their sinking ship, or treading water without a lifeboat in site.

It still points out, how the little ones can stay in business when they have almost no market share. They must be so happy to keep making money and paying salaries from the pittance we get and their larger cut. Otherwise the low earners and middle, would all have shut down years ago.

Shelma1

« Reply #42 on: August 03, 2017, 17:22 »
+4
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

« Reply #43 on: August 03, 2017, 17:30 »
+1
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

« Reply #44 on: August 03, 2017, 19:59 »
+5
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #45 on: August 03, 2017, 23:24 »
0
Just forget Oringer buying back SS!  why should he? he is worth over a billion dollars and towards the end just before leaving he was totally exhausted and burnt out and thats according to himself.


. "I wasnt even aware of SS going public until I joined this forum  so steady on buddy. ::)"

Tongue in cheek!  so steady on buddy! ::)

« Reply #46 on: August 04, 2017, 00:42 »
0
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.


derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2017, 01:26 »
0
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.


I been with them since the start Offset that is and they certainly have some top notch content but for buyers first searching 0.25c images at SS and then go over to offset searching images for sometimes hundreds of dollars??  thats a big step! too much! these kind of buyers probably go straight to these macro agencies prepared to pay decent money.

« Reply #48 on: August 04, 2017, 01:44 »
0
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.


I been with them since the start Offset that is and they certainly have some top notch content but for buyers first searching 0.25c images at SS and then go over to offset searching images for sometimes hundreds of dollars??  thats a big step! too much! these kind of buyers probably go straight to these macro agencies prepared to pay decent money.
not what I meant ;-). The money saved by prioritising lower cost images is not as much as the cost of losing customers.

« Reply #49 on: August 04, 2017, 02:33 »
+3
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.
I would be surprised if they weren't giving a boost to the people on a lower rate.  They are only really interested in maximising profits and that's an obvious way to do it.  It would explain why some people seem to have no problem selling new images but others find it almost impossible.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #50 on: August 04, 2017, 06:08 »
0
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.


I been with them since the start Offset that is and they certainly have some top notch content but for buyers first searching 0.25c images at SS and then go over to offset searching images for sometimes hundreds of dollars??  thats a big step! too much! these kind of buyers probably go straight to these macro agencies prepared to pay decent money.
not what I meant ;-). The money saved by prioritising lower cost images is not as much as the cost of losing customers.

Yep! true!

« Reply #51 on: August 04, 2017, 06:25 »
+1
just hope SS doesn't send us an email- "Dear Contributors in an effort to increase your sales we will need to reduce your commission rates to spend the additional savings on more marketing"  :(
Or more luxury office space


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

« Reply #52 on: August 04, 2017, 07:16 »
+1
just hope SS doesn't send us an email- "Dear Contributors in an effort to increase your sales we will need to reduce your commission rates to spend the additional savings on more marketing"  :(
Or more luxury office space


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do get the feeling they are letting costs run away from them. Shareholders are forgiving when sales/stock is rising less so when things not looking so rosy. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sstk+share+price&oq=SSTK&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60j69i57j69i60j69i61j69i59.2220j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Looks like the price is dropping after every quarterly report...not a good sign.

« Reply #53 on: August 04, 2017, 08:05 »
+1
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.


I been with them since the start Offset that is and they certainly have some top notch content but for buyers first searching 0.25c images at SS and then go over to offset searching images for sometimes hundreds of dollars??  thats a big step! too much! these kind of buyers probably go straight to these macro agencies prepared to pay decent money.
not what I meant ;-). The money saved by prioritising lower cost images is not as much as the cost of losing customers.

You're assuming that the new content is lower quality or less commercial.  I am assuming that, as a whole, much of the new content is every bit as good as old, and it doesn't matter to the customer...it's seamless.  And I think that there is a probability in play here.  A certain percent of buyers just search and buy. Others use the search by age, popularity, etc. filters to find additional content if they can't find what they want in a basic default search.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #54 on: August 04, 2017, 08:20 »
0
mantis I dont think its a matter of good or bad content anymore its a matter of the agencies just piling on the pics for the sake of it. The more pics the more assets no matter what just keep em coming.

Brasilnut

  • Author Brutally Honest Guide to Microstock & Blog

« Reply #55 on: August 04, 2017, 08:50 »
0
This amount of public scrutiny is precisely why some companies prefer to stay as private instead of going public!

« Reply #56 on: August 04, 2017, 12:21 »
0
I received a mail from shutter and said to shot tons of isolated marijuana images...

no, not good idea, already saturated! 
a better idea would be to send a packet of it to ss H.O.  as i am sure they are running low in stock (no pun intended) of
that ganja !!! :)


« Reply #57 on: August 05, 2017, 00:29 »
0
Why I don't find such a discussion on the Shutterstock forum?

« Reply #58 on: August 05, 2017, 00:40 »
0
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.


I been with them since the start Offset that is and they certainly have some top notch content but for buyers first searching 0.25c images at SS and then go over to offset searching images for sometimes hundreds of dollars??  thats a big step! too much! these kind of buyers probably go straight to these macro agencies prepared to pay decent money.
not what I meant ;-). The money saved by prioritising lower cost images is not as much as the cost of losing customers.

You're assuming that the new content is lower quality or less commercial.  I am assuming that, as a whole, much of the new content is every bit as good as old, and it doesn't matter to the customer...it's seamless.  And I think that there is a probability in play here.  A certain percent of buyers just search and buy. Others use the search by age, popularity, etc. filters to find additional content if they can't find what they want in a basic default search.
To some extent but if the most saleable images by whoever are pushed back "artificially" then this will reduce the overall quality of the search.

namussi

« Reply #59 on: August 05, 2017, 03:39 »
+1


yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???


Oringer appears to be buying shares in Shutterstock

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/ownership-summary



derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #60 on: August 05, 2017, 07:32 »
0
Really??  somehow I doubt that.

« Reply #61 on: August 05, 2017, 07:39 »
+1
Really??  somehow I doubt that.
Personally I believe what has been reported to Nasdaq rather than subjective opinion. Betting on the eventual success of SS which is comforting.

« Reply #62 on: August 05, 2017, 08:18 »
0
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.


I been with them since the start Offset that is and they certainly have some top notch content but for buyers first searching 0.25c images at SS and then go over to offset searching images for sometimes hundreds of dollars??  thats a big step! too much! these kind of buyers probably go straight to these macro agencies prepared to pay decent money.
not what I meant ;-). The money saved by prioritising lower cost images is not as much as the cost of losing customers.

You're assuming that the new content is lower quality or less commercial.  I am assuming that, as a whole, much of the new content is every bit as good as old, and it doesn't matter to the customer...it's seamless.  And I think that there is a probability in play here.  A certain percent of buyers just search and buy. Others use the search by age, popularity, etc. filters to find additional content if they can't find what they want in a basic default search.
To some extent but if the most saleable images by whoever are pushed back "artificially" then this will reduce the overall quality of the search.

Yes and no.  How does new content become 'most sellable' if it is buried the moment it is submitted?

« Reply #63 on: August 05, 2017, 09:30 »
0
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.


I been with them since the start Offset that is and they certainly have some top notch content but for buyers first searching 0.25c images at SS and then go over to offset searching images for sometimes hundreds of dollars??  thats a big step! too much! these kind of buyers probably go straight to these macro agencies prepared to pay decent money.
not what I meant ;-). The money saved by prioritising lower cost images is not as much as the cost of losing customers.

You're assuming that the new content is lower quality or less commercial.  I am assuming that, as a whole, much of the new content is every bit as good as old, and it doesn't matter to the customer...it's seamless.  And I think that there is a probability in play here.  A certain percent of buyers just search and buy. Others use the search by age, popularity, etc. filters to find additional content if they can't find what they want in a basic default search.
To some extent but if the most saleable images by whoever are pushed back "artificially" then this will reduce the overall quality of the search.

Yes and no.  How does new content become 'most sellable' if it is buried the moment it is submitted?
I do think this is a problem...again whether old or new contributor there's just so much new stuff much of which of dubious quality that it must be almost impossible to sift out the good stuff which is maybe why new content is struggling.

derek

    This user is banned.
« Reply #64 on: August 05, 2017, 09:40 »
+4
The thing is this!  most sites are pushing subscription packages! they are " telling"  the buyers what they want to sell what they want the buyer to buy. They are not really giving the buyers a choice of what the buyer wants them to buy.

A personal friend of mine is a part owner in one of the middle-tier agencies and thats what he says. It renders more money for the agency but less for the contributor so in order to float and stay alive in this cut-throat business thats what they have to do.

Myself?  I feel its a load of crap really!  I mean one reasons why the smaller Rm/Rf agencies stay alive so well is the fact they accept and promote quality not quantity. SS pride themselves in telling the world they have billions of images!  fine!  but who in their right mind wants to sit there wading through page after page of irrelevent material?
I think ultimately its suicide!

« Reply #65 on: August 05, 2017, 09:57 »
+1


yes, 2 scenarios possible ; one good for us, other tragic.
1) Oringer short the stock and waiting for the price to collapse then go back in to buy up everything, then declare SS private
2) Getty also short the stock and wait also for the price to collapse then become the main shareholder and we are all dead ducks ...
as money will not make us happy, because it 's money Getty intends to keep for themselves.

scenario on is unlikely, as Oringer already makes enough money , he does not need to own SS anymore as if already mention, micro is dead, why would he bother to keep ss???


Oringer appears to be buying shares in Shutterstock

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/sstk/ownership-summary


Did he buy those or did he get those awarded? Not the same thing. He is paid $1 a year but has stock options and rewards for company performance.

Why does Warren Buffet keep running his company and investing? He's a billionaire? Just like the others on that list, they like what they do, it's not for more money, they have all that a small country could need to survive.

« Reply #66 on: August 05, 2017, 10:23 »
0
Revenue per download increased for them. It doesn't necessarily mean it increased for us. As someone pointed out earlier, pushing new contributors with lower royalties to the top of the popular search could increase their RPD because they keep more of the moolah.

Could, but there's no proof or evidence that they do. They could have purple cows that give green milk. Show Me?

I liked your other idea better. Competition up 57% will hurt sales.  :)

Well, i will gbe you one data pount. In a matter of a day, my income was cut in half....about a grand a mont to less than $500. Now on my third month of this. It was a search change. Search changes happen over night. This was not a slow, gradual, incremental change. So the question is why would they do that? My very logical hypothesis is that they are pushing lower royalty content to the top because it costsbthem less. It shows in their financial. Pretty easy to assess. Can i prove it? No but i sure can make a reasonable argument that its not easy to defelect by using a purple cow analogy. ;)
Its possible but I doubt it as I think the risk of losing customers who can't find the best images offsets it I think. I just think as they have said they are always tweaking the algorithm to maximise sales and sometimes this has unfortunate consequences for some contributors. If they are doing it maybe it does explain some of the drop in downloads and its not a smart move.


I been with them since the start Offset that is and they certainly have some top notch content but for buyers first searching 0.25c images at SS and then go over to offset searching images for sometimes hundreds of dollars??  thats a big step! too much! these kind of buyers probably go straight to these macro agencies prepared to pay decent money.
not what I meant ;-). The money saved by prioritising lower cost images is not as much as the cost of losing customers.

You're assuming that the new content is lower quality or less commercial.  I am assuming that, as a whole, much of the new content is every bit as good as old, and it doesn't matter to the customer...it's seamless.  And I think that there is a probability in play here.  A certain percent of buyers just search and buy. Others use the search by age, popularity, etc. filters to find additional content if they can't find what they want in a basic default search.
To some extent but if the most saleable images by whoever are pushed back "artificially" then this will reduce the overall quality of the search.

Yes and no.  How does new content become 'most sellable' if it is buried the moment it is submitted?
I do think this is a problem...again whether old or new contributor there's just so much new stuff much of which of dubious quality that it must be almost impossible to sift out the good stuff which is maybe why new content is struggling.

Yea totally agree with that.


namussi

« Reply #67 on: August 06, 2017, 02:34 »
0

Did he buy those or did he get those awarded? Not the same thing. He is paid $1 a year but has stock options and rewards for company performance.

Why does Warren Buffet keep running his company and investing? He's a billionaire? Just like the others on that list, they like what they do, it's not for more money, they have all that a small country could need to survive.

Being awarded stock options is not the same as being awarded stock.

The options allow you to buy shares at a predetermined price (which is usually well below the price on the open market).

You don't have to take up the options. But if you do, you have to spend money and so you buy the shares.

Sometimes people take up the options, buy the shares at a big discount, and then sell the shares for full price on the open market.

But the insider trades page on Nasdaq does not show that Mr Oringer has sold any shares yet.


« Reply #68 on: August 07, 2017, 06:10 »
0
they not have problems it seems...only us contributor who see our quote diluted every month cause the millions images of poor quality added each month and thousand of contributors added to spread the sales cake so most will not manage to have a payout for ages and ss can "dress " their balance much better than if they had to payout a lot more each and every month. that's why new contributor, even those who ask for critic here with portfolio that i couldn't even consider as portfolio can sell new files better than those who are on higher ranking.

persoanlly i hope all those agency starting from dreamstime and ss will collapse soon leaving i hope the field for new agency who value much more the work of photographer and stop this situation, accepting only quality portfolio.
this situation is only ridiculous.

OM

« Reply #69 on: August 07, 2017, 11:47 »
0

Did he buy those or did he get those awarded? Not the same thing. He is paid $1 a year but has stock options and rewards for company performance.

Why does Warren Buffet keep running his company and investing? He's a billionaire? Just like the others on that list, they like what they do, it's not for more money, they have all that a small country could need to survive.

Being awarded stock options is not the same as being awarded stock.

The options allow you to buy shares at a predetermined price (which is usually well below the price on the open market).

You don't have to take up the options. But if you do, you have to spend money and so you buy the shares.

Sometimes people take up the options, buy the shares at a big discount, and then sell the shares for full price on the open market.

But the insider trades page on Nasdaq does not show that Mr Oringer has sold any shares yet.

You can also elect to cash out the options if they're in the money. Cash settlement (aka free money) instead of buying stock.

« Reply #70 on: August 07, 2017, 14:44 »
0
just hope SS doesn't send us an email- "Dear Contributors in an effort to increase your sales we will need to reduce your commission rates to spend the additional savings on more marketing"  :(

I'm  pretty sure they already reduced commission rates as of June.  I used to see several $150 SODs a month.  This has now transformed to $1.50, $0.59, $0.75, $0.86 SODs. It's kind of sad, but I knew it would happen eventually.  I think everything started to change as soon as Adobe entered the market and pushed prices down.  It's hard to compete with a company that big.  My biggest fear of SS not paying as much per download has now come to fruition :(

« Reply #71 on: August 07, 2017, 15:04 »
0

I'm  pretty sure they already reduced commission rates as of June.  I used to see several $150 SODs a month.  This has now transformed to $1.50, $0.59, $0.75, $0.86 SODs. It's kind of sad, but I knew it would happen eventually.  I think everything started to change as soon as Adobe entered the market and pushed prices down.  It's hard to compete with a company that big.  My biggest fear of SS not paying as much per download has now come to fruition :(

defintely. even $28 would be nice today. in those days, i used to see $102, $80, and complain that some other times I get $28.
today you get nfa.  as for adobe, it only matters if you cannibalize your image and give it to both ss and adobe,etc..
but if you're not, i don't see why ss need to lower the prices. i don't think it's to compete with adobe;
i think it's to keep the giant share of the pie to themselves, and not share it with the contributors.

greed is the first thing when a company goes public.

ShadySue

« Reply #72 on: August 07, 2017, 15:32 »
0
... as for adobe, it only matters if you cannibalize your image and give it to both ss and adobe,etc..
but if you're not, i don't see why ss need to lower the prices. i don't think it's to compete with adobe;
i think it's to keep the giant share of the pie to themselves, and not share it with the contributors.
How does that work? Some sort of Premium Access deal? Or ...?

Quote
greed is the first thing when a company goes public.

namussi

« Reply #73 on: August 07, 2017, 20:03 »
0


You can also elect to cash out the options if they're in the money. Cash settlement (aka free money) instead of buying stock.

But why would you?

If the options are in the money, why not borrow some cash for a few days, buy the shares at a discount, and then sell them immediately. You'd make lots more money.

Even then, you might not need the cash if you time the settlement dates right.

Options are no longer free money. Once upon a time, maybe. But then the tax authorities and accounting standards people caught on.






 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
22 Replies
8853 Views
Last post November 17, 2011, 17:59
by rubyroo
22 Replies
7163 Views
Last post April 15, 2016, 05:53
by OM
13 Replies
2799 Views
Last post July 13, 2016, 01:54
by Pauws99
7 Replies
2216 Views
Last post November 23, 2016, 05:11
by Lana
8 Replies
4670 Views
Last post January 30, 2017, 15:53
by Lecaro

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results