Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 107 posts

Re: Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

#91

Post by ken47 »

greggman wrote: post #90
kartickv wrote: post #89

If I were a founder who wanted to make sure employees and founders get a better deal, what are my options? Can I accept money from investors only on the condition that they get paid only after employees and founders get paid a minimum amount, like $1M each? The stronger version of idea is to not grant stock / stock options to employees (or grant only one share if needed for legal reasons). Instead offer a guarantee t…

I'm confused. Employees and founders get a salary. There is no risk to them. If the company fails the investors lose millions of dollars, the founders and employees leave with 1-2-3 years of salary in their pockets and then go get another job. That is why investors get paid first. Am I missing something? I guess I don't understand where this idea that founders and employees should get paid first. In guessing because…

The ethics of this go deeper than what you describe. If Warren Buffett invests 1m in a company, is he in a riskier position than if a McDonald's clerk were to invest 10k in the same company? The absolute dollar value is not the only way to gauge risk exposure.

Re: Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

#92

Post by greenyoda »

kartickv wrote: post #89

If I were a founder who wanted to make sure employees and founders get a better deal, what are my options? Can I accept money from investors only on the condition that they get paid only after employees and founders get paid a minimum amount, like $1M each? The stronger version of idea is to not grant stock / stock options to employees (or grant only one share if needed for legal reasons). Instead offer a guarantee t…

"Can I accept money from investors only on the condition that they get paid only after employees and founders get paid a minimum amount, like $1M each?"

Sure, you can do that, but good luck finding an investor who would be willing to actually give you money under those conditions.

If I were an investor, what incentive would I have to take on this additional risk? There are thousands of founders lining up outside my office who are more than willing to accept my standard terms.

Re: Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

#93

Post by greenyoda »

exw wrote: post #37
tmaly wrote: post #34

All the more reason to go public and have some liquidity in your shares. I remember being at Intel in 1999 when the share price was 72. six months later it was down around 18. There was one smart senior engineer there that had put options as insurance against all his shares. The rest in that group had to rethink retirement.

> Not sure what the rules were at that time, but most public companies restrict you today from owning any derivatives in their stock.

How could a company find out that you bought put options on their stock?

Re: Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

#94

Post by oroup »

kartickv wrote: post #89

If I were a founder who wanted to make sure employees and founders get a better deal, what are my options? Can I accept money from investors only on the condition that they get paid only after employees and founders get paid a minimum amount, like $1M each? The stronger version of idea is to not grant stock / stock options to employees (or grant only one share if needed for legal reasons). Instead offer a guarantee t…

The closest I've seen to this in real life is where an investor will purchase common shares meaning they are on equal footing to investors. It's rare, but it does happen.[0]

[0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/snapchat-discloses-650-million-p...

Re: Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

#95

Post by galtwho »

greggman wrote: post #90
kartickv wrote: post #89

If I were a founder who wanted to make sure employees and founders get a better deal, what are my options? Can I accept money from investors only on the condition that they get paid only after employees and founders get paid a minimum amount, like $1M each? The stronger version of idea is to not grant stock / stock options to employees (or grant only one share if needed for legal reasons). Instead offer a guarantee t…

I'm confused. Employees and founders get a salary. There is no risk to them. If the company fails the investors lose millions of dollars, the founders and employees leave with 1-2-3 years of salary in their pockets and then go get another job. That is why investors get paid first. Am I missing something? I guess I don't understand where this idea that founders and employees should get paid first. In guessing because…

except for the fact that Employees and founders salary is generally below market rate while at the same time they are expected to work more than standard hrs( 8 Hrs?? ) and be available 24x7 to fix issues. Equity with promises of big payout is given as a reason to take such such a deal over a job at a Bank.

Now these employees and founders know that these promises are empty and the example provided above is one good way to keep the promise.

Lots of investors expect Founders to take a salary needed to survive and also don't get paid for the sacrifices already made.( its assumed their equity stake makes up for the difference)

Re: Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

#96

Post by galtwho »

greenyoda wrote: post #92
kartickv wrote: post #89

If I were a founder who wanted to make sure employees and founders get a better deal, what are my options? Can I accept money from investors only on the condition that they get paid only after employees and founders get paid a minimum amount, like $1M each? The stronger version of idea is to not grant stock / stock options to employees (or grant only one share if needed for legal reasons). Instead offer a guarantee t…

"Can I accept money from investors only on the condition that they get paid only after employees and founders get paid a minimum amount, like $1M each?" Sure, you can do that, but good luck finding an investor who would be willing to actually give you money under those conditions. If I were an investor, what incentive would I have to take on this additional risk? There are thousands of founders lining up outside my o…

Zukerberg managed to get such investors. If investors want in on the game, then they need to make the sacrifice.

If the company wants the investor money, they make the sacrifice.

whoever is desperate loses more.

Re: Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

#97

Post by kartickv »

greenyoda wrote: post #92
kartickv wrote: post #89

If I were a founder who wanted to make sure employees and founders get a better deal, what are my options? Can I accept money from investors only on the condition that they get paid only after employees and founders get paid a minimum amount, like $1M each? The stronger version of idea is to not grant stock / stock options to employees (or grant only one share if needed for legal reasons). Instead offer a guarantee t…

"Can I accept money from investors only on the condition that they get paid only after employees and founders get paid a minimum amount, like $1M each?" Sure, you can do that, but good luck finding an investor who would be willing to actually give you money under those conditions. If I were an investor, what incentive would I have to take on this additional risk? There are thousands of founders lining up outside my o…

The incentive is more reward, like investing at a lower valuation. Or if each employee's upside is limited, that leaves more money for investors, if the company succeeds.

More risk, more reward. Anything I'm missing?

Re: Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

#98

Post by greggman »

galtwho wrote: post #95
greggman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. Employees and founders get a salary. There is no risk to them. If the company fails the investors lose millions of dollars, the founders and employees leave with 1-2-3 years of salary in their pockets and then go get another job. That is why investors get paid first. Am I missing something? I guess I don't understand where this idea that founders and employees should get paid first. In guessing because…

except for the fact that Employees and founders salary is generally below market rate while at the same time they are expected to work more than standard hrs( 8 Hrs?? ) and be available 24x7 to fix issues. Equity with promises of big payout is given as a reason to take such such a deal over a job at a Bank. Now these employees and founders know that these promises are empty and the example provided above is one good…

I'm probably not seeing the difference but it almost seems like by this logic a busboy (busperson?), the person that cleans up the dishes at a restaurant is owed $$$$$$$ because he could have gotten a higher paying job so he's sacrificing for the rest of us?

Is a fast food worker who goes to company A at $8 a hr but expects to move up into a management position and then gets denied, is he owed money because he could have gone to company B at $10 but without a management position expectation?

Employees and founders get paid. So it's lower than market rate it's still > 0 which means zero risk. They get a tiny piece of the pie. If things fail they still got > 0 whereas investors got < 0. You want the big payoff you have to take the big risk.

Re: Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

#99

Post by kartickv »

ken47 wrote: post #91
greggman wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm confused. Employees and founders get a salary. There is no risk to them. If the company fails the investors lose millions of dollars, the founders and employees leave with 1-2-3 years of salary in their pockets and then go get another job. That is why investors get paid first. Am I missing something? I guess I don't understand where this idea that founders and employees should get paid first. In guessing because…

The ethics of this go deeper than what you describe. If Warren Buffett invests 1m in a company, is he in a riskier position than if a McDonald's clerk were to invest 10k in the same company? The absolute dollar value is not the only way to gauge risk exposure.

Not only is the McD clerk less able to afford loss, she doesn't get the opportunity to diversify risks, as Warren Buffett does by investing in many companies.

Re: Expect Some Unicorns to Lose Their Horns, and It Won’t Be Pretty

#100

Post by kartickv »

greggman wrote: post #98
galtwho wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except for the fact that Employees and founders salary is generally below market rate while at the same time they are expected to work more than standard hrs( 8 Hrs?? ) and be available 24x7 to fix issues. Equity with promises of big payout is given as a reason to take such such a deal over a job at a Bank. Now these employees and founders know that these promises are empty and the example provided above is one good…

I'm probably not seeing the difference but it almost seems like by this logic a busboy (busperson?), the person that cleans up the dishes at a restaurant is owed $$$$$$$ because he could have gotten a higher paying job so he's sacrificing for the rest of us? Is a fast food worker who goes to company A at $8 a hr but expects to move up into a management position and then gets denied, is he owed money because he could…

We are in full agreement that risk and reward go together. In fact, my suggestion is a way to shift more risk and more reward onto investors.

If I impose the condition that investors get paid only after employees get paid, I expect that I'll get investment at a lower valuation. Which means greater upside for investors if the company becomes a big success.

Alternatively, if each employee's upside is limited, then that leaves more of the money (again if the company succeeds) for investors.

In either case, the goal is to shift more risk AND reward onto investors, not only risk.

Post reply on HN