Live data from Hacker News

Amazon bought Eero for $97M and employees still got screwed

mashable.com

71–80 of 93 posts

Re: Amazon bought Eero for $97M and employees still got screwed

#71

I don't understand what people expect in this kind of situation. The company was bought for around the amount of money that they took in investment, or less. Why would the employees get anything? If preference didn't exist, and I could take $10M in investment at $100M in valuation, and then the next day liquidate the company, return $1M, and keep $9M, obviously that would just mean that nobody would invest in startup…

> You've got to give the execs some incentive to stay around if you want to keep operating the company. Do people expect execs to work out of the goodness of their hearts?

> The company failed.

why would you pay 7 figure retention bonuses to execs of a failed company?

Re: Amazon bought Eero for $97M and employees still got screwed

#72
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would the employees get anything? This may be the most tone-deaf thing I've read in a long-ass time. BECAUSE THEY DID THE (...) WORK!

Yes, of course they did work. For which they got a salary. Of course, if they worked for equity rather than cash, that was their call and one would expect them to bear the outcome.

Nevermind.

Re: Amazon bought Eero for $97M and employees still got screwed

#73
post #39

I still don't understand why the last investor is the first one to be able to cash out. Is this common in startup? I was thinking the first investor is the one that took the big risk investing in the company, shouldn't they have the rights to cash out first when there is a liquidation event?

for startups without meteoric growth (most of them), it becomes harder to raise money later. especially in an area with no real moat (commodity wifi). if the revenue growth is not a hockey stick it’s harder and harder to sell your story. this translates into stiffer preference

Re: Amazon bought Eero for $97M and employees still got screwed

#74

I don't understand what people expect in this kind of situation. The company was bought for around the amount of money that they took in investment, or less. Why would the employees get anything? If preference didn't exist, and I could take $10M in investment at $100M in valuation, and then the next day liquidate the company, return $1M, and keep $9M, obviously that would just mean that nobody would invest in startup…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon bought Eero for $97M and employees still got screwed

#75

I don't understand what people expect in this kind of situation. The company was bought for around the amount of money that they took in investment, or less. Why would the employees get anything? If preference didn't exist, and I could take $10M in investment at $100M in valuation, and then the next day liquidate the company, return $1M, and keep $9M, obviously that would just mean that nobody would invest in startup…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon bought Eero for $97M and employees still got screwed

#76
post #5

For what it’s worth, this is what a fire sale / acqui-hire looks like for a large-ish hardware company. Were investors and early employees screwed? Sure. But these execs could likely have gotten similar payouts over similar timeframes by simply jumping ship. As for Eero the company? Sounds like it was dead. I don’t want to sound like I’m justifying this kind of behavior. But the main deceptive thing is calling this a…

> the main deceptive thing is calling this acquisition a “successful exit” — it was far from that!

Corporate speak. Put a positive spin on everything!!!

Re: Amazon bought Eero for $97M and employees still got screwed

#77
Regardless of acquisition price point, this is almost always what happens when employees take these third-rate shares.

The solution is employees need to insist on the exact same class of shares as founders. Furthermore, more startup workplaces need to closer to co-ops than these pseudo-meritocratic corporations out to exploit labor with impunity. Maybe it wouldn't have helped in this instance, but that's not the point... the point is being treated fairly regardless of exit outcome.

Re: Amazon bought Eero for $97M and employees still got screwed

#78
post #68
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Final sale price was $97 million. > Crunchbase reports that Eero took $90 million in venture capital (the Wall Street Journal put the number at $100 million). PitchBook, a highly accurate source of VC information, claimed a final $40 million Series D fundraising round from December 2017 brought that number up to $138 million. Eero declined to comment, instead pointing to a March 12 blog post confirming the sale. >…

That's actually not a bad idea, as a backstop.

I did a search for `startup "put option"` to see if there was anything written about this. There is one article arguing that major early investors should demand something vaguely similar [1] -- although it sounds like it is not designed to be triggered when a company fails and loses a lot of value, but instead perhaps when a company is partially succeeding, or succeeding but the investor wants to reduce exposure or otherwise get some cash back:

> If the investor exercises the put, the investor is entitled to redeem all or a portion of his equity interests in exchange for the initial investment value plus a nominal return above the risk-free rate, yet still maintain a reduced equity position in the company–perhaps, somewhere between 50% to 75%.

> To prevent the investor from exercising the put at a moment when the company’s financial stability or expansion plans could be jeopardized, the company can require that in addition to a prescribed time period restriction, certain revenue milestones must be achieved and set as “triggers” before the put may be exercised.

> The put option must be structured in a way that enhances the investor’s optionality without putting the company at balance-sheet risk. It is possible to strike that balance.

[1] https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2010/04/01/venture-populist-the...

Another variation would be to strike a deal where put options were not written by the startup but by some other third party (an insurer or bank?), which was highly likely to remain liquid in the event that the startup went bust. This could avoid needing to constrain the use of the options with triggers & so on. On the other hand, it would be a pretty risky business for a third party to sell such things, so they probably wouldn't be cheap to buy...

Re: Amazon bought Eero for $97M and employees still got screwed

#80

> Eero may have been first to mesh WiFi, but competition came fast. Multiple companies including Luma and NetGear launched similar products in the next year. Huh? Meraki had a mesh WiFi product out at least five years before this. How am I supposed to trust the rest of the article if the author can’t do basic fact checking?

meraki is subscription service, not a product that people own. Once your subscription is over, its a paperweight.

No, I owned four Meraki mesh APs. This was before they got bought by Cisco.
Post reply on HN