SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors • Hacker News Board

Re: SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors

#61

Post by skinnymuch » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 10:07 AM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #15

chroem- wrote: post #4

It's interesting that I can't think of any of these megagrowth tech startups that have gone off without a hitch. Zenefits, Uber, Snapchat, etc. are all in some form of trouble or another, and yet these companies are supposed to be the shining success stories that all other tech startups aspire to.

It doesn't help that VCs actively promote and foster founders who behave in ways that would get themselves in trouble. I guess in the case of Zenefits misleading investors is a rule that doesn't "matter". 4. Naughtiness Though the most successful founders are usually good people, they tend to have a piratical gleam in their eye. They're not Goody Two-Shoes type good. Morally, they care about getting the big questions…

Someone got downvoted below for saying multiple things. One being not to always follow unwritten rules. Yet from what can be gathered about Loopt, it seems like it wasn't acquired for legit purposes. Loopt was failing, had common investors with the acquiring company, was acquired, and promptly shut down.

I'd think most people would say something that seems like cronyism is an unwritten rule of what not to do. Yet that's a [big] part of Sam's legacy, no? Of course I'm assuming things about the Loopt acquisition, but it never did look right.

Re: SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors

#62

Post by skinnymuch » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 10:13 AM UTC

austenallred wrote: post #34

mbesto wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you’re used to obeying rules (especially unwritten ones) you’ll never get off the ground in the first place. I know plenty of people who "get off the ground" by playing by the rules. I'd love for you to re-read your comment again and tell me that it doesn't sound dogmatic.

Of course it’s a general statement and doesn’t represent 100% of instances. But it’s generally true. Find me a billion dollar company started by someone who follows all the rules.

I've made a lot of money off their stock so it immediately comes to mind - Atlassian. The only things I can think of are how they maneuvered around Australia's tax stuff, but they didn't go full on into tax havens like other companies have been accused of doing. They just went towards the U.K. And people have issues specifically with their products like Jira, but none of that relates to rules or ethics.

What rules did companies like Atlassian not follow?

Re: SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors

#63

Post by skinnymuch » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 10:14 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #52

austenallred wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it’s a general statement and doesn’t represent 100% of instances. But it’s generally true. Find me a billion dollar company started by someone who follows all the rules.

Find me anyone who follows all rules. Maybe draw the restriction back a bit, there.

Hah I wrote a much longer comment that essentially winded up being just this. Following all the rules is way too restrictive. Everyone speeds or breaks some traffic law at some point. Def need some criteria.

Re: SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors

#64

Post by skinnymuch » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 10:18 AM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #10

majormajor wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Snap can't be both! :D

Give any company enough time. If you want to describe four strategies a company has used to become a shining success, your list could be Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft. If you want to describe four ways a company has really screwed up and was punished by the market and/or the government, your list could also be Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft and Microsoft. You can probably replace Microsoft with Apple…

Sure, but companies like Snap or Twitter are much easier to poke holes at. They both tried their best to screw over a legit co-founder. Sadly Twitter succeeded.

Both already had some toxic people near the beginning of their time. I'd say that makes them a toxic company from the get go too. You can't say the same thing for a ton of other companies. In these cases we didn't need to give much time at all. I think that's an important distinction.

Re: SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors

#65

Post by SmellTheGlove » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 2:13 PM UTC

spaceseaman wrote: post #47

jackmott wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

gentle/kind souls don't usually want to be CEOs/leaders and accept that stress and risk. People who are cutthroat and willing to step on other people to get ahead DO want to be CEOs. such is life

Sorry but we live in a country that has rules and regulations for what CEOs and leaders do - regardless of how "cutthroat" they are. Their ambitions do not forgive their transgressions, and we have no obligation to accept that as "life". I do not see such behavior to be the essence of life, and I find it concerning you're so willing to accept it as the natural order.

Do we really have that sort of system, though? This company and its former CEO just got fined just shy of $1M combined. Is that a deterrent or an added cost of doing business? I think it's the latter.

And I wonder how much the SEC spent in manpower to arrive at this outcome. I can't really remember the last time any of their enforcement actions ended up as anything significant.

Re: SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors

#66

Post by mason55 » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 2:29 PM UTC

greenyoda wrote: post #56

natural219 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm. What endgame? They get away with charging $6.66 / month / user for the most popular organizational chat application in existence.

They can only charge $6.66/month until a competitor comes along that creates a better and/or cheaper product. Unlike Facebook, which has a lot of inertia because all your friends may be on it and you can't get them to switch, a company can easily switch all its employees to a different corporate chat app: the CEO orders it, and it's done. Also, that $5B valuation is based on significant expectations of future growth.…

Slack has raised insane amounts of money at really good terms just because they can. The funding world is insane right now and they are taking advantage.

They can easily do what Facebook or Oracle did and just buy up any competitions with their huge warchest.

Re: SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors

#67

Post by bspn » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 2:29 PM UTC

PakG1 wrote: post #59

joshmn wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a ton of dirt on Stripe. Info in my comment history, I won't dig it up.

I was curious, so I searched a bit. No mention of stripe at all within the past 372 days of your comments. Mind sharing now that you've piqued my interest?

It appears he had a bad experience with them:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11833815

and is writing a book about it:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12749364

Re: SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors

#68

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 3:50 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #66

greenyoda wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can only charge $6.66/month until a competitor comes along that creates a better and/or cheaper product. Unlike Facebook, which has a lot of inertia because all your friends may be on it and you can't get them to switch, a company can easily switch all its employees to a different corporate chat app: the CEO orders it, and it's done. Also, that $5B valuation is based on significant expectations of future growth.…

Slack has raised insane amounts of money at really good terms just because they can. The funding world is insane right now and they are taking advantage. They can easily do what Facebook or Oracle did and just buy up any competitions with their huge warchest.

[deleted]

Re: SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors

#69

Post by greenyoda » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 3:52 PM UTC

mason55 wrote: post #66

greenyoda wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can only charge $6.66/month until a competitor comes along that creates a better and/or cheaper product. Unlike Facebook, which has a lot of inertia because all your friends may be on it and you can't get them to switch, a company can easily switch all its employees to a different corporate chat app: the CEO orders it, and it's done. Also, that $5B valuation is based on significant expectations of future growth.…

Slack has raised insane amounts of money at really good terms just because they can. The funding world is insane right now and they are taking advantage. They can easily do what Facebook or Oracle did and just buy up any competitions with their huge warchest.

You can't always buy out your competitors. Facebook itself is an example of this, having turned down numerous acquisition offers (including one from its competitor MySpace, and then one from the company that bought MySpace):

http://www.businessinsider.com/all-the-companies-that-ever-t...

Re: SEC fines Zenefits and former CEO for misleading investors

#70

Post by austenallred » Sat, Oct 28, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

skinnymuch wrote: post #63

majormajor wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Find me anyone who follows all rules. Maybe draw the restriction back a bit, there.

Hah I wrote a much longer comment that essentially winded up being just this. Following all the rules is way too restrictive. Everyone speeds or breaks some traffic law at some point. Def need some criteria.

That’s the point of PG’s statement...