Not at all surprised

Snip

2 million shares will be sold by certain existing stockholders and 1 million shares will be sold by Shutterstock.  In addition, both Shutterstock (SSTK) and the existing stockholders have granted to the underwriters an option to purchase up to 450,000 additional shares of common stock. 

Shutterstock will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of the shares sold by the selling stockholders.

what does it means actually? in layman term..

is it shutterstock issue more shares to the market? it is usually a sign as they want more cash?

By issuing more shares, they are diluting the value of the existing shareholders, but not by a whole lot, since they have 33 million shares outstanding. 1 million more are new shares, and 2 million are from "certain existing shareholders", which usually means shareholders from when they were private that have reached the lockup period.
Why do this? Most likely, this is the best time and method to capitalize on the big run up from the IPO. This gives them a war chest to jump on oppourtunities that may arise without having to borrow money, and proves to potential investors that they have the market power to raise capital.
 What oppourtunities? Well, say that there was a once high flying competitor that needed to be put out of it's misery- some poorly managed hapless bunch of clowns that can't get it right, and are on an unsustainable path. And they were owned by a bunch of clowns that have burned through all the cash and just want out...

is this the reason the shares of stock jumped this week to over $60 a share? Seems like any news whatsoever moves the stock one way or the other.

Quote from: mtkang on September 17, 2013, 11:27

what does it means actually? in layman term..

is it shutterstock issue more shares to the market? it is usually a sign as they want more cash?

It means that they need money.

We have a few clues

Snip

2 million shares will be sold by certain "existing stockholders" and 1 million shares will be sold by Shutterstock.  In addition, both Shutterstock (SSTK) and the existing stockholders have granted to the underwriters an option to purchase up to 450,000 additional shares of common stock.

Shutterstock will not receive any of the proceeds from the sale of the shares sold by the selling stockholders.

Understanding the motivation behind secondary offerings is important. If a secondary offering is executed to help existing major investors reduce their positions in the stock, take a good look at who's selling out. The more of an insider the seller is, the more cause there is to wonder whether they see problems on the horizon.

There are several common reasons for secondary offerings

The company could need to raise capital in order to pay down debt, finance operations, make an acquisitions etc. With this type of secondary offering, the company in question actually issues brand new shares, increasing its existing share count.

When a secondary offering involves the issuance of new shares, the main concern for existing shareholders is dilution. With an increase in shares outstanding, the stock shares become diluted and represent less of the overall company, and a proportionately smaller share of the company's profits going forward. The one positive is the company gets to keep the cash raised from the offering, which increases its overall value.

Secondary offerings occur when the business badly needs capital, and that's most likely to happen if shares have been beaten down. Obviously, selling new stock when share prices are depressed is the worst possible timing and explains why reactions to secondary offerings can be negative.

Another common reason would be a case of getting out while the stock prices are at a peak.

In this case secondary offerings happen because major shareholders want a chance to sell out at peak prices. Stock prices often fall when founders sell shares they own personally.

Private-equity investors and other early-stage financiers can also be involved in the decision to do a secondary offering. When private equity investors are involved, secondary offerings aren't as big a cause for concern. Although the big blocks of shares cause temporary selling pressure, the offerings don't dilute existing shareholders and usually have no impact on the business.

Alarm bells should go off when corporate insiders sell out. When a founder or key executives sells shares, it can raise fears of a loss of confidence in the company going forward.

News from Seeking Alpha;

Shutterstock jumps on 4.6M share follow-on � 1:13 PM

�Shutterstock (SSTK +12.2%) shares jump after the company prices a 4.6M (600K overallotment) follow-on at $60/share.
�The company is selling 1M shares, and founder and CEO Jon Oringer and Insight Venture Partners are releasing 3.6M.

SSTK price at time of publication: $67.68.

http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/sstk

Oringer currently holds about 55% of Shutterstock - 18.5 million shares. Any word of how many shares he is personally cashing out.

http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-oringer-is-a-billionaire-2013-6#ixzz2fTX1wbIc

This is a somewhat unusual case.  Typically when more stock is issued, the stock price falls because of dilution and a reduction in earnings per share.  Given that they were issuing shares at $60, the price should have dropped to around that level, not increase to $67.  I don't really understand why they want to increase public float either.

Lead underwriter Jefferies is pumping the deal. Is its buy rating on the shares a conflict of interest?

Shutterstock Announces Pricing of Follow-On Offering

Snip
Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank and Jefferies are acting as bookrunning managers for this offering.

http://www.rfdtv.com/story/23480370/shutterstock-announces-pricing-of-follow-on-offering

Buy Shutterstock (SSTK) Despite Lockup Expiration - Jefferies

Snip April 9, 2013

Jefferies reiterated its Buy rating and raised its price target on Shutterstock (NYSE: SSTK) from $35 to $46 despite today's lockup expiration on approximately 28 million shares.

The firm said the lockup expiration impact will be minor. "By our math only ~2.9MM of these could come to market, due to standard Rule 144 provisions and blackouts, which will limit selling among the four key insiders."

Fundamentally, the firm notes its proprietary web scrapers confirm Shutterstock's library of images now exceeds 25 million, the most ever.

Forgot to post the link on Jefferies

http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Buy+Shutterstock+%28SSTK%29+Despite+Lockup+Expiration+-+Jefferies/8240414.html

Quote from: gbalex on September 21, 2013, 10:57

Lead underwriter Jefferies is pumping the deal. Is its buy rating on the shares a conflict of interest?

I strongly suspect that "pumping" is exactly the right word.

I strongly suspect that a major acquisition is just around the corner. SS to buy DT maybe? Any other guesses?

I strongly suspect that a major acquisition is just around the corner. SS to buy DT maybe? Any other guesses?

Well maybe. But do they need to ? Is it worth the headache of integrating with DT or Fotolia when they could probably take most of that business via competition ?

And would they not be better sitting on the cash as a war chest ? Surely in the coming microstock price war those with the deepest pockets will be able to survive longest.

Also - don't they need the money in order to start diversifying on price ? Aren't they over-exposed to microstock (and therefore a price war) whilst being almost not there at midstock etc. Other companies can probably sustain a prolonged price war on microstock because they have other revenue streams and are not public.

All that said. Well done to the shareholders for ditching a significant proportion of their stock at what must surely be close to the top of this crazy cycle.

Quote from: bhr on September 21, 2013, 14:02

Quote from: gostwyck on September 21, 2013, 13:01

I strongly suspect that a major acquisition is just around the corner. SS to buy DT maybe? Any other guesses?

Well maybe. But do they need to ? Is it worth the headache of integrating with DT or Fotolia when they could probably take most of that business via competition ?

And would they not be better sitting on the cash as a war chest ? Surely in the coming microstock price war those with the deepest pockets will be able to survive longest.

Also - don't they need the money in order to start diversifying on price ? Aren't they over-exposed to microstock (and therefore a price war) whilst being almost not there at midstock etc. Other companies can probably sustain a prolonged price war on microstock because they have other revenue streams and are not public.

All that said. Well done to the shareholders for ditching a significant proportion of their stock at what must surely be close to the top of this crazy cycle.

I think DT have quite a loyal following of customers and, it would seem to me, have held their share of the market remarkably well in the face of the SS juggernaut. Far better than IS or FT judging by my own numbers. I didn't upload to DT for 30 months and yet their proportion of my total earnings remained relatively static. They also generate the best RPD of the 'Big 4/5' by some margin too. I think DT would be a very good buy for SS __ they already have an office in the USA so integration, to the limited degree necessary, should be relatively simple. BigStock remain as a separate business with their own staff even though they are housed in the same building as SS.

I think SS wants to acquire other agencies in order to grow quickly, have greater market share and more control of prices. They'll make more profit too which should help to keep the share price rising.

God I hope not, DT outperforms SS for me.  I would hate to see my port drop like a rock when those blood suckers took the rains.

I think an acquisition is a real possibility. But, I'm thinking it might be a Pond5 or similar in a market segment that they don't already dominate and that offers growth potential.

Someone calling themselves 'Money Investor' on Seeking Alpha is left scratching their head on SS's recent price rise;

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1709772-shutterstock-latest-price-action-should-leave-investors-scratching-their-heads?source=email_rt_article_readmore

Someone calling themselves 'Money Investor' on Seeking Alpha is left scratching their head on SS's recent price rise;

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1709772-shutterstock-latest-price-action-should-leave-investors-scratching-their-heads?source=email_rt_article_readmore

yep, read that in my inbox this morning, very interesting article!

If SS wants to acquire a competitor, Pond5 could be a more likely candidate than DT I think. Once they buy P5, they will be able to dominate the microfootage market maybe %80.

Just my 2 cents..

Someone calling themselves 'Money Investor' on Seeking Alpha is left scratching their head on SS's recent price rise;

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1709772-shutterstock-latest-price-action-should-leave-investors-scratching-their-heads?source=email_rt_article_readmore

I doubt that "money investor" has any plans to short the stock anytime soon. I'm sure his/her motives are pure and he/she is just trying to save us poor little investors who don't know any better.

Although I did take a little off the table when it jumped to $70 for no real reason. 

Quote from: nicku on September 23, 2013, 01:12

Quote from: stockastic on September 21, 2013, 09:38

When this bubble bursts - watch out.

+1

I believe this ''game'' is pyramidal... the shares can't rise forever.... the bubble will burst and the investors will want their money.
than what ? ? ?

Probably the typical cycle of technology companies after an IPO.   Once the irrational exuberance dissipates, first-round investors start applying the pressure to top execs, who are quite receptive because they're highly leveraged themselves.  Both these groups have one goal - get the stock price back to what they think it should be, which unfortunately might be an unrealistically high number.   Thumbscrews are fitted to the employees, and every rock is overturned in search of ways to boost profits in the short run.  That's where we come in :-)

As much as I wish to contradict you........ but you are right ......than the Bigstock structure will come in.

Didn't Maynard Keynes once say, " Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

Nice one!

You can't compare P/E ratios of SS to Amazon.  Or even Netflix.  Or Tesla.  Or Apple.  Many companies have P/E ratios of 600 for good reason....they are super growth companies.  SS is not super growth. When you short a company, you have to pay interest on it every month.

This isn't completely correct. You pay margin costs if and only if the value of your short position exceeds your free account equity. So if you are short $5000 worth of a stock, but have $6000 of cash in your account, no margin costs are accrued. You do pay for all dividends however.

That said, I don't recommend anyone try shorting unless they have a lot of experience. There is a lot of cliche among old Wall Street quotes, but the Keynes quote is dead on. It would have made a lot of sense to short the Nasdaq at the end of 1998 based on its gross overvaluation. But that didn't stop the index from roughly doubling over the next year. To stick with that trade would have required a lot of extra cash, and a tremendous amount of patience.

FWIW I wrote a similar post to this in a previous thread, but it got deleted for being off-topic. So take the advice before it gets deleted?

Perhaps SS will buy another site but I'm sure the ones that are worth it would of turned down several offers by now. 

The big jump in the SS share price makes me more concerned that they are the target.  If they aren't eating the small fish, a big fish might eat them

The big microstock sites seem reasonably safe from new competition because buyers don't seem to like moving much.  Look at the efforts istock have made to get rid of their buyers but they still have some

So when you know who left, it would of been a good time to buy SSTK.  I didn't think one portfolio was going to hinder them much.

That's his money now, nothing of that goes into the company.

With over 144 million (+ others income and previous sold shares) CASH, in his pockets Oringer will not give a f*** what will become of SS. 

I think he could of sold out for a lot more.  So hopefully he's one of the few people that's more interested in the business than the money.

That's his money now, nothing of that goes into the company.

Thats very worrying to me. See my previous comment

If you look at how much the hedge funds paid for Getty, I think he could of easily made as much or more selling SS privately as he has from selling shares.

I think if you outright sold a company you would get compensated for goodwill and future profits, if I am correct.

Quote from: sharpshot on September 30, 2013, 06:14

If you look at how much the hedge funds paid for Getty, I think he could of easily made as much or more selling SS privately as he has from selling shares.

Yes but that was in early 2008  . back than even small house was 3-4 time more expensive than the actual value....

Did you forget the sale for much more in 2012?
http://www.ibtimes.com/getty-images-sold-33b-top-management-carlyle-group-747716