Love that this seems to be getting more popular, hope it becomes the norm for companies in the future.
If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees
71–80 of 278 posts
Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees
#72Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…
The invalid reasons are all accurate. The only challenge is (almost?) everyone has a friend or colleague that worked at Slack or Uber and made stupendous amounts of money; far in advance of what they would get at a FAANG. It doesn't take into account luck & risk, but this kind of casual relationship with successful startups colours peoples expectations in a different light.
I’ve worked for 5 startups now and my equity payout has been 0, 0, 0, 0, and now I stand I make low 7 figures from the equity on this last company (publicly traded now).
During those startups the following happened: - I saw my nieces and nephews so little they forgot my name. They were young, sure, but it still stung when they look at you like a stranger
- Messed up a 8+ year relationship with my significant other and we haven’t talked in years
- Let my student debt pile up to take on more equity than salary (dumbass idea for the record)
- Lost friends along the way because I could never do anything
- Missed many family/friends birthdays as I was working
- Worked 80 hour weeks for a long time
What did I feel after I saw my equity/stock rise to above 7 figures? Stupidity. I gave up a lot on my journey and money can’t get it back, in fact, the money I stand to earn doesn’t enable me to do much more than what my salary already does. I can travel, eat well, have luxury goods if I want (I’m not that type of person but anyways), and so forth.
My point being that this was a.) self-inflicted and b.) not worth the combined opportunity cost of all of those years.
So for every “friend” who made lots of money at Uber or other places, there’s a story like me or a story where someone’s never made anything from equity because profitable exits are fucking hard
Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was 0% chance of that occurring as the CEO was a total shark. You would be shocked at how much of the cap table he retained vs. all the crazy funding shenanigans that happened. Very astute player of the game, he did very well. I will invest in his future companies but never work for him again.
Can you name the company, I'm curious
Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees
#74Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…
I switched to working remotely for a San Francisco-based startup because they offered me a 30% raise over what my current employer was willing to pay.
Two years later, when working for the startup became less palatable, I went back to my old company. My manager there struggled with the HR dept as hard as they could and got them to just match my startup salary in order for me to come back.
Which I guess is just to say the parent comment is not universally correct.
Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees
#75Always absent in these kinds of essays/posts is the reason why startups are able to get away with this. If it didn't work, obviously the options games would have stopped a long time ago. A lot of people don't want to admit that there's a small army of young, naive employees who are enamored with startups and are perfectly willing to sign up for below-market salary and extremely unfavorable options terms in exchange f…
Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees
#76That 90-day expiry window is the most archaic bullshit. Can't come up with 200K cash? Too bad, and thanks for all that hard work and long hours you put in.
The way some companies get around it is that, after 90 days, they replace the expired ISOs with nonstatutory stock options which, as their name implies, are not recognized by the tax code. Tax code is complicated but NSOs are ultimately worth maybe 10%-20% less than "equivalent" ISOs.
But, at least until recently, there wasn't standard paperwork for doing this, so the only companies that did it were those willing to innovate on their stock plan. I think a lot of founders weren't trying to screw their employees, but their lawyers weren't comfortable going off the beaten path.
But I think that excuse is fading now. Enough companies have done it to provide precedent.
My circa-2015 startup looked at this and fretted a bit but ultimately sidestepped the problem by giving everyone restricted stock instead of options. That's only really possible at the very early stages when the 409(a) valuation is nearly zero. But for anyone joining a seed-stage startup today, that's what I strongly recommend: Ask for restricted stock, and if the purchase cost is non-zero, ask them to comp you for it as a signing bonus (which is "free" for them since they're buying the stock from themselves). You'll have to pay income tax on the value but that should be pretty small (maybe you can even get the company to "gross it up", but that's real dollars for them). Then you'll never have to worry about exercising stock options or paying AMT. Don't forget to file your 83(b) election within 30 days.
Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees
#77I missed over $1 million in options when one of my former companies was acquired. I still made good money but nowhere near the same. I was pretty sure it was going to sell, but I didn't know how long it would take (over 1 year for sure) and nothing in life is guaranteed. If I had exercised all the options I would have had over $300k in paper gains for a tax bill. Instead I exercised 10% of what I had the ability to e…
Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I know what you mean. I have a similar issue: just way too good looking for large companies. I could make more money and have less stress at a large company, but my good looks keep me out. Fortunately, this dinky startup is willing to tolerate someone this handsome.
I'm sorry, that's really uncalled for and a complete misrepresentation of the topic. Would you like to add to the conversation instead? I'll be happy to read whatever you have to say.
I did not mean to upset you.
Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees
#79Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…
Main reason: it's more fun. I could be a cog in a giant corporate machine, or I can have a measurable impact where I work. I can stay in my lane and do my specific job tasks, or I can run around putting out fires and helping wherever help is needed. I mindlessly build the specific design product handed me, or I can guide my own work in accordance to the needs of our customers and the business. I can follow policy and…
Mindlessly building what is handed to you is a culture problem and not a company size problem. Some startups have less freedom than some corporations but both usually grant more freedom to more senior people.
You can still 'wear many hats' at some mega corps too, if the company only has 'engineer' as a title then you are expected to basically do 'everything' . The team you are on will decide what the balance is though.
I think all of what you said could apply to both sizes of the companies.
Re: If founders treated their investors the same way they treated their employees
#80Valid reasons to work for a startup: - You are a cofounder. - You have little experience and you are using this to break into the industry, and get experience on many different technologies ("wear many hats"). - They are working on a very specific problem or using a specific technology that you strongly desire to work on and it's difficult to do it anywhere else. - You want to work a certain way (remote, on the beach…
Frankly I'm getting tired of this drum HN keeps beating about startups not offering a good work/life balance. Some startups don't, true. Some FAANGs don't either, what's the difference? I know plenty of startups that have a sane working culture as a key point of differentiation in the job market.