pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SSTK to sell 3M more shares.  (Read 16450 times)

0 Members and 17 Guests are viewing this topic.



« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2013, 17:13 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2013, 17:28 by gbalex »

« Reply #2 on: September 17, 2013, 11:27 »
0
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?

jbarber873

« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2013, 18:32 »
+3
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...

« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2013, 18:38 »
0
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.

« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2013, 18:43 »
0
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.

« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2013, 19:25 »
+1
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...

They're not 'issuing more shares' are they? I thought they were just transferring existing shares.

« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2013, 23:00 »
0
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.

« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2013, 12:59 »
0
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

« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2013, 17:43 »
0
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

BK

« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2013, 00:35 »
0
The market didn't see this as a warning sign. SSTK closed above $70 up 16% today. And on a day the overall market was down. They certainly can't continue that trajectory, but Wall Street doesn't see this as a negative for the company.

calcaneus10

« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2013, 00:45 »
0
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.

« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2013, 09:38 »
0
When this bubble bursts - watch out.


« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2013, 10:57 »
0
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.

« Reply #14 on: September 21, 2013, 12:00 »
0
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.

« Reply #15 on: September 21, 2013, 12:13 »
0

« Reply #16 on: September 21, 2013, 12:14 »
0
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.


Analysts' Ratings History for Shutterstock (NYSE:SSTK)
http://www.analystratings.net/stocks/NYSE/SSTK/?RegistrationCode=ArticleClickthrough


« Reply #17 on: September 21, 2013, 13:01 »
+1
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?

« Reply #18 on: September 21, 2013, 13:40 »
+1
Seems they've got over the loss of you know who.

 I don't really understand the ins and outs of this stuff - but they already have quite a bit in the bank.

« Reply #19 on: September 21, 2013, 14:02 »
+1
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.

« Reply #20 on: September 21, 2013, 15:09 »
+1
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.

« Reply #21 on: September 21, 2013, 16:08 »
+1
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.

« Reply #22 on: September 21, 2013, 16:21 »
+6
@gostwyck

I respect your perspective because you always say what you mean.

But I think that SS are going to need to focus their attention on diversifying their business. They have announced Offset but have very few distribution deals in place. Nearly all agencies distribute via Getty.

SS is, more or less, only in the microstock business. From a savings and investments perspective I am nervous of SS because I believe that only being in microstock, as they seem to be, is like having all of your eggs in one basket. It seems to me that without other revenue streams they are very vulnerable to a microstock price war. Other companies have other revenue streams and do not have to deal with the public.

Surely the normal thing is to buy businesses which are in markets which you want to get into. Ie geographical regions or similar but slightly different businesses. I am nervous of the stock price because, frankly, the market is nuts currently.


BK

« Reply #23 on: September 21, 2013, 16:36 »
+2
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.

« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2013, 01:12 »
0
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 ? ? ?

« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2013, 10:40 »
0
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

« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2013, 10:49 »
+2
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 :-)


« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2013, 10:51 »
0
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!

« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2013, 11:18 »
+7
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!


I liked the last line of the article
Quote
The problem is that any competitor with a web hosting service, cloud servers, and the ability to pay users more for their images and offer those images to customers at a cheaper price can tremendously disrupt the disrupter.


I'm glad to see at least someone realizes it is the photographers who hold at least some of the power to say who succeeds an fails as a stock agency and that it is important to keep the contributors happy if you aren't going to loose market share.

ACS

« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2013, 12:47 »
0
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..

« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2013, 12:52 »
+3
"The problem is that any competitor with a web hosting service, cloud servers, and the ability to pay users more for their images and offer those images to customers at a cheaper price can tremendously disrupt the disrupter."

What puzzles me is that none of the many competitors seem to come close - I can only assume its not as easy as it looks!

BK

« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2013, 16:27 »
+2
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.  ;)

calcaneus10

« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2013, 23:31 »
0
Would be a good short with a P/E of 31.5 if it wasn't a bull market. 

« Reply #33 on: September 25, 2013, 00:47 »
+1
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.

OM

« Reply #34 on: September 25, 2013, 18:13 »
+2
Would be a good short with a P/E of 31.5 if it wasn't a bull market.

Didn't Maynard Keynes once say, " Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."
At least SSTK has a P/E ratio unlike some stocks..... Amazon for example!

Buy SSTK with both hands cos it's going to go up forever.........until it doesn't. LOL.

« Reply #35 on: September 25, 2013, 19:48 »
-1
Didn't Maynard Keynes once say, " Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

Nice one!

calcaneus10

« Reply #36 on: September 26, 2013, 18:45 »
0
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.


« Reply #37 on: September 27, 2013, 08:28 »
0
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?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2013, 08:32 by djpadavona »

« Reply #38 on: September 29, 2013, 23:04 »
0
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/weekly-ceo-sells-highlight-shutterstock-inc-autodesk-inc-cm281052

Shutterstock Inc. ( SSTK ): CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer Sold 2,530,000 Shares

CEO, 10% Owner of Shutterstock Inc ( SSTK ) Jonathan Oringer sold 2,530,000 shares on 09/25/2013 at an average price of $57.3. Shutterstock Inc has a market cap of $2.53 billion; its shares were traded at around $72.87 with a P/E ratio of 44.05 and P/S ratio of 10.76.

Shutterstock Inc. reported their 2013 second quarter financial results. The Company announced net income of $6.9 million and revenues of $56.8 million.

CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer sold 2,530,000 shares of SSTK stock on 09/25/2013 at the average price of 57.3. President and COO Thilo Semmelbauer sold 15,000 shares of SSTK stock in July, August, and September.


« Reply #39 on: September 30, 2013, 02:30 »
0
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.


Ron

« Reply #40 on: September 30, 2013, 04:14 »
0
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/weekly-ceo-sells-highlight-shutterstock-inc-autodesk-inc-cm281052

Shutterstock Inc. ( SSTK ): CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer Sold 2,530,000 Shares

CEO, 10% Owner of Shutterstock Inc ( SSTK ) Jonathan Oringer sold 2,530,000 shares on 09/25/2013 at an average price of $57.3. Shutterstock Inc has a market cap of $2.53 billion; its shares were traded at around $72.87 with a P/E ratio of 44.05 and P/S ratio of 10.76.

Shutterstock Inc. reported their 2013 second quarter financial results. The Company announced net income of $6.9 million and revenues of $56.8 million.

CEO, 10% Owner Jonathan Oringer sold 2,530,000 shares of SSTK stock on 09/25/2013 at the average price of 57.3. President and COO Thilo Semmelbauer sold 15,000 shares of SSTK stock in July, August, and September.


Does that mean he pocketed 144,969,000$ or is that money going into the company?

« Reply #41 on: September 30, 2013, 04:23 »
0
That's his money now, nothing of that goes into the company.

« Reply #42 on: September 30, 2013, 04:54 »
+3
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.  ;)

« Reply #43 on: September 30, 2013, 05:09 »
0
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.

Ron

« Reply #44 on: September 30, 2013, 05:12 »
+2
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.  ;)
Thats why I asked the question.

He was 55% owner, now he is 10% owner. So SS is no longer in his hands. He is no longer calling the shots. If I understand correctly. He cashed out, and is walking. The new TOS and EULA indicate changes coming up. Brace yourselves, its going to be ugly.

Ron

« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2013, 05:13 »
+1
That's his money now, nothing of that goes into the company.

Thats very worrying to me. See my previous comment

« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2013, 06:08 »
0
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.

If he was more interested in the business than the money.... maybe better not trade SS on the stock; or better trade only a small part of the shares ( to get a quickly a large sum of money) and retain the 50% + 1 of the company.

 If Origer wanted to sell SS before the stock listing definitely would not have earned that much money....  ;)


« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2013, 06:14 »
0
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.

« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2013, 06:24 »
0
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  ;D. back than even small house was 3-4 time more expensive than the actual value....

Ron

« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2013, 06:40 »
0
I think if you outright sold a company you would get compensated for goodwill and future profits, if I am correct.

« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2013, 06:42 »
+1
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.

Nah, taking a company public can be turned into (and it very often is) an enormous scam that can bring you more money then the company would make in several hundred years of constant growth... but SS turning public up ot now looks like to be just a regular scam free business move.

« Reply #51 on: September 30, 2013, 07:14 »
0
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  ;D. 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


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
14 Replies
4496 Views
Last post August 06, 2007, 18:23
by pr2is
2 Replies
2588 Views
Last post October 11, 2012, 17:39
by gostwyck
22 Replies
8628 Views
Last post April 15, 2016, 05:53
by OM
13 Replies
4160 Views
Last post July 13, 2016, 01:54
by Pauws99
26 Replies
8122 Views
Last post August 22, 2016, 12:55
by YadaYadaYada

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle