How much of imutual do you own?

Post by **richard@imutual** » Thu Dec 01 2011 4:59pm

Time for our regular update as to how many imutual shares have been issued to members. Here are updated totals:

Shares allocated to members as at 1/12/2011

Awarded - 637,678
Pending - 441,322

Oggy · Post by **Oggy** » Thu Dec 01 2011 5:40pm

Hmm, so I own next to diddly squat.

Unless it floats at £100 per share.

Post by **richard@imutual** » Thu Dec 01 2011 6:16pm

Well yes, but you own next-to-diddly-squat of something that is increasing in value as more people use it

Plus remember there is still the offer of 100 shares for every single person you refer, regardless of whether they make a transaction (not sure how long we're gonna keep it that way)

uglysteve · Post by **uglysteve** » Thu Dec 01 2011 9:10pm

richard@imutual wrote:Well yes, but you own next-to-diddly-squat of something that is increasing in value as more people use it

Plus remember there is still the offer of 100 shares for every single person you refer, regardless of whether they make a transaction (not sure how long we're gonna keep it that way)

Well, yeeees - but obviously as it's increasing in value, it's decreasing of percentage of company owned, so unless you're earning at a rate greater than average, isn't your shareholding decreasing in value? Or am I missing something?

superman · Post by **superman** » Thu Dec 01 2011 11:10pm

i'm looking to the future and hoping to see something positive (before i die). it's a good bet IMO.

kevinchess1 · Post by **kevinchess1** » Fri Dec 02 2011 12:00am

jimthehorsegod wrote:
richard@imutual wrote:Well yes, but you own next-to-diddly-squat of something that is increasing in value as more people use it

Plus remember there is still the offer of 100 shares for every single person you refer, regardless of whether they make a transaction (not sure how long we're gonna keep it that way)
Well, yeeees - but obviously as it's increasing in value, it's decreasing of percentage of company owned, so unless you're earning at a rate greater than average, isn't your shareholding decreasing in value? Or am I missing something?

Assumin you earn at the same rate year after year, then the % you own will always been the same

uglysteve · Post by **uglysteve** » Fri Dec 02 2011 8:46am

kevinchess1 wrote:
jimthehorsegod wrote:
richard@imutual wrote:Well yes, but you own next-to-diddly-squat of something that is increasing in value as more people use it

Plus remember there is still the offer of 100 shares for every single person you refer, regardless of whether they make a transaction (not sure how long we're gonna keep it that way)
Well, yeeees - but obviously as it's increasing in value, it's decreasing of percentage of company owned, so unless you're earning at a rate greater than average, isn't your shareholding decreasing in value? Or am I missing something?

Assumin you earn at the same rate year after year, then the % you own will always been the same

No, it won't:

You own, say 2% of 200000 shares - so 4000 shares, at the end of year one.
If the site doubles in business the following year, but you earn at the same rate as you say, you'll earn another 4000 shares, but this year 400000 would be issued meaning you now own 8000 out of 600000 shares = 1.33%

If you earn your same 4000 shares the year after that, and the business doubles again, then with your total going up but the issued total increasing by 800000 you now own 12000 out of 1400000, - 12000/1400000 = 0.86%

You can see where I'm going.

Now, I'm not saying this is a bad thing and I'm not saying it's unfair - the model's great IMO and I'm here too after all, but I think you're wrong about how you see your future share value I'm afraid!

Eurovisionfan · Post by **Eurovisionfan** » Fri Dec 02 2011 9:02am

Well, whatever it's worth, it's something else!!! Just hope that having lots of shareholders doesn't cost too much money in the long run!

Post by **richard@imutual** » Fri Dec 02 2011 9:34am

Yes, Jim's right that, if you earn at the same rate and the site grows its membership, then your % of the company will gradually decrease. But what's important is the actual value of your shares, not what % of the company you own.

The best way to think about this is, if the shares were actually quoted on a stock exchange, what would be the effect of the site growing on the company's "share price"?

The obvious criticism of the imutual model is that, as we keep issuing more shares, we are diluting existing shareholders. But our policy is to issue shares in a consistent manner and commensurate with the value that a member's actions are adding to the company.

If you agree that we are doing that, then at worst the issuing of more shares has a neutral effect on the value of your existing shareholding. Because the company's value increases in proportion to the shares being issued

BUT I would go further than that. In the world of corporate acquisitions, company's tend to attract a higher 'multiple' if they are 'big' and 'growing' (excuse the simplistic terms, but I think you get my point). Take the 'big' point first:

An investor wants to purchase a cashback website and has a choice between company A (membership of 100,000) and company B (membership of 1,000,000). Assuming both companies generate similar revenue-per-member, you might assume that company B ought to be worth ten times more than company A. Not so - it will be worth much more than ten times the value of company B, all other things remaining equal. That's because the investor knows that the 1m person membership of company B offers much greater opportunities; go to a retailer and say "what can you offer our 1m members?" and you get a much better response than if you say "what can you offer our 100,000 members?". Also, there is always a 'market leader' premium; investors in companies such as ours generally want to buy 'winners' and then consolidate that position, not buy a company in 2nd or 3rd place and take on the difficult task of overtaking an establish leader. Finally, going through the process of an acquisition is costly and time-consuming, and a company needs to be of a certain size to make the whole exercise worthwhile for the buyer.

The bottom line, size IS (almost) everything.

Investors also like to see that a site is growing. Continuing to attract members via the share offer makes imutual more attractive, because it demonstrates its 'potential' to keep increasing in size and value. I trust I don't need to expand on that point any further

Note that, in the short term, I consider this to be a hypothetical discussion. I imagine we are many years away from attracting such an offer, but even so, it's important to understand that you benefit from growth of the site, even though it reduces your % shareholding.

uglysteve · Post by **uglysteve** » Fri Dec 02 2011 11:39am

richard@imutual wrote: If you agree that we are doing that, then at worst the issuing of more shares has a neutral effect on the value of your existing shareholding. Because the company's value increases in proportion to the shares being issued

Yes this is the key point - and I'd say yes, it is indeed the case.

The aim then is to make sure you're spending wildly to make sure you keep up with the curve

How much of imutual do you own?

How much of imutual do you own?

Re: How much of imutual do you own?

Re: How much of imutual do you own?

Re: How much of imutual do you own?

Re: How much of imutual do you own?

Re: How much of imutual do you own?

Re: How much of imutual do you own?

Re: How much of imutual do you own?

Re: How much of imutual do you own?

Re: How much of imutual do you own?

Who is online