Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

PLEASE! GO PUBLIC!

Mark Phelan said:
... the one thing I would do if it were my decision is to never go public. Who needs it? The hassles, the ridiculous shareholder demands, the public scrutiny, the very essence of life drained slowly from your marrow, the reporting, etc. The rewards do not justify it.
Click to expand...

I agree... The only exception to me, is if you have absolutely no other way of raising capital. But then again it's almost impossible for a small to afford to go public. The requirements don't justify it for large businesses, and the requirements make it impossible for smaller companies, that actually need to use it.
 
Raising capital ? I think Jim Jannard might be doing just fine... :-)

Andrew McCarrick said:
I agree... The only exception to me, is if you have absolutely no other way of raising capital. But then again it's almost impossible for a small to afford to go public. The requirements don't justify it for large businesses, and the requirements make it impossible for smaller companies, that actually need to use it.
Click to expand...
 
As everyone as said this would be a horrible idea.

Just imagine Sony or Canon being able to snatch the shares up, and erode the values that make Red great.
 
axel ebermann said:
Raising capital ? I think Jim Jannard might be doing just fine... :-)
Click to expand...

Exactly, that's why I said what I did. RED (and it's founder) have enough capital it doesn't NEED to go public. Nor do most companies that go public for that matter.



It's a little ridiculous when you look at the listing requirements to get on the NYSE:

Aggregate pre-tax income for the last 3 years - $10 million
Minimum in each of the 2 most recent years (Third year must be positive) - $2 million
OR
Aggregate pre-tax income for the last 3 years - $12 million
Minimum in the most recent year - $5 million
Minimum in the next most recent year - $2 million

And you have to at least a minimum of a $100 Million Market Value.
 
Jake Bastian said:
I hope the exact opposite. Going public - having to please shareholder's rather than Jim's vision is exactly the opposite of what this company needs.
Click to expand...

+1

Never. Please.
 
Andrew McCarrick said:
Exactly, that's why I said what I did. RED (and it's founder) have enough capital it doesn't NEED to go public. Nor do most companies that go public for that matter.
Click to expand...

I just love how people here who have likely never run a company, let alone a large company with revenues in the many millions, feel they know and understand the reasons or ramifications of taking such a company public. Not to mention somehow knowing how Red is capitalized, how much it capitalized for, or how much Jim may or may not have.

I'm not saying people aren't entitled to opinions on this issue. But they're just personal opinions, and for the most part, they're based on what the posters want (i.e., direct access to the owner, more and cheaper products, and the feeling - true or not - that the company somehow exists for their own personal betterment rather than as a solid, successful business entity) rather than what's right for Jim personally or Red as a company. I don't know the answer to that latter issue. But neither does anyone else here who isn't named Jannard, Land, or someone else in the inner circle.
 
M Most said:
I just love how people here who have likely never run a company, let alone a large company with revenues in the many millions, feel they know and understand the reasons or ramifications of taking such a company public. Not to mention somehow knowing how Red is capitalized, how much it capitalized for, or how much Jim may or may not have.
Click to expand...


Actually, I run 4 companies. And I'm working on a $5 to $10 million capital raise for one of them.

This post does not constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to purchase, securities.
 
The only reason to go public is to bring in extra capital. When you have pretty much all the capital you could possibly need in the form of a bank account full of cash... why would you share your profits with shareholders? Right now as a privately owned company 100% of the profits can go to the owner. I mean, I would love to own stock in RED and get a cut of that gravy train, but I don't see any incentive for Jim to make less money for my sake haha.

I guess there is one other reason... if you're a company like YouTube which doesn't actually make any money you want to go public so that your stock is your source of income.
 
This seems a bit crazy,

Being public, doesn't that make RED potential to hostile take overs? I'm not sure on the insides of RED but public would seem or more so feel like a bad move...at least right now. Capital and all are one factor but I think there are other factors, like Jannards direction he wants to lead everything and his freedom to push RED wherever he may feel, into uncharted waters and so forth. It's great, its fun...it keeps this place buzzing...

This going public thing though has been brought up before and it wont happen any time soon, I can't speak for the future cause I'm not a fortune teller but I can speculate at the least and I doubt in the near future at least either...

There's a ton more behind the reasons for RED not going public other than capital...sure capital means they could spend crazy amounts on increasing production to ridiculous points but there are reasons they aren't going public...

Jannard is a damn good business man, Oakley is a damn fine example of it. So their reasons are probably more solid then anything and I doubt they'll ever say why publicly but its for damn good ones I'm sure and the fact that they aren't I'm happy.

On the other hand private investment would be pretty damn awesome if that was possible, cash injection of half a billion or more to get a 1% and pre-release of goodies would be a damn awesome deal...then again...to some that'd be madness...REDs definitely got value for me though
 
M Most said:
I just love how people here who have likely never run a company, let alone a large company with revenues in the many millions, feel they know and understand the reasons or ramifications of taking such a company public. Not to mention somehow knowing how Red is capitalized, how much it capitalized for, or how much Jim may or may not have.

I'm not saying people aren't entitled to opinions on this issue. But they're just personal opinions, and for the most part, they're based on what the posters want (i.e., direct access to the owner, more and cheaper products, and the feeling - true or not - that the company somehow exists for their own personal betterment rather than as a solid, successful business entity) rather than what's right for Jim personally or Red as a company. I don't know the answer to that latter issue. But neither does anyone else here who isn't named Jannard, Land, or someone else in the inner circle.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Jim's slogan and going public are diametrically opposed.
 
Imran Farouk said:
Being public, doesn't that make RED potential to hostile take overs?
Click to expand...

Not if you sell less than 50% of the company in the IPO. If you sell less than 50% and maintain 50% or more, then a hostile bid can be blocked by you, and you alone. Takeover bids go to share holders, if you hold more than 50% of the shares, they have no chance of taking over the company, if you don't want them to.

The most a hostile bidder can do at that point is do a "tender offer" to the share holders that own less then 50% of the company. If that occurs the owner with 50%+ of the company can choose to "go dark" (or take the company private), as the SEC only requires you to file annual and quarterly reports if you have over 300 shareholders.

And again, I'm not saying it's a good idea for Red to go public, only Jim can determine that; I'm just simply giving answers to the questions being asked.
 
Gavin Greenwalt said:
why would you share your profits with shareholders?
Click to expand...

You don't have to share profits with shareholders.... Only if you choose to issue a dividend. Not all companies do. Apple doesn't. Most executives own a different class of common shares (Class B, Class C, etc.) or Preferred Shares, that have dividends. The public has common shares which don't (if you choose not to issue a dividend).
 
Not a chance in hell. Eventhough it would be an awesome company to invest.

Not way...
 
It certainly is tempting... but I have vivid nightmares of doing this once before. :-)

Jim
 
Jannard said:
I'm having a cigar as we speak. Actually... I always have a cigar in hand. :-)

Jim
Click to expand...

LOL
Good you're not in Norway! :)
You'd been arrested!

I have vivid fantasies of you and Graeme meeting up for conoiseure nights, discussing images, liquids and cigars!


LOL

nJoy!

G
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top