Live data from Hacker News

Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad (2019)

steveblank.com

161–170 of 379 posts

Re: Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad (2019)

#161
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I don't buy this explanation. Very few employees are paid in any financially complex way. It depends on the class of workers. I'd agree with you w/r/t most wage earners being paid in transparent manner. But I think the GP comment was referring to technology workers (given the context of HN.) In the case of tech workers, many are paid in very complex ways. If you have illiquid stock options in a private company, an…

> if you have taken a below-market salary as many startup employees have I think this is part of the startup mythos. At the three startups I've worked at (~10 people), none of us had to sacrifice competitive salaries for stock options. The options were on top to incentivize staying at the company longer. I wonder how common it actually is for people to take significant paycuts in 2020 for a startup opportunity (found…

The confusing part is that salary and stock get mixed up, but in a public company the stocks effectively cash and can basically be considered salary, unlike illiquid equity.

I don’t know where you’re from, but in SF amongst my circles, senior engineer market rate is about 300-500k but most startups will only pay 150-225k salary so that’s a huge pay cut. However, the base salaries are same, but you can pay your rent, mortgage, or student loans with the public company RSUs.

That’s why it’s bullshit when employees get told they get common shares while investors get preferred because employees take salary and therefore less risk. If you’re walking away from 200k per year of public stock that you could instantly sell on the public market and buy real estate with, you are in fact taking a huge risk and a pay cut. Trying to pretend like you’re not and that the startup is paying a “competitive salary” is a sleight of hand used in 2020 to fool naive engineers.

Re: Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad (2019)

#162

The recent HN article on meritocracy comes to mind. I had never considered it this way in the past, but in the 70’s, productivity started decoupling massively from productivity gains. I.e. the best people at finance (meritocracy) figured out how to capture all the new earnings relative to the workers (who didn’t know this game was going on). This has snowballed into a situation where the financial meritocracy is comp…

I don't buy this explanation. Very few employees are paid in any financially complex way. Wages dropping overall must have a different explanation, which I suspect is an increase in labor supply due to women entering the labor force and illegal immigration combined with a decrease in demand due to automation.

> I don't buy this explanation. Very few employees are paid in any financially complex way.

I don't think the point has anything to do with the complexity of the wages, but how workers are generally hired and paid, and how work is now structured, compared to the 70s, e.g. nowadays there are more contractors than ever, taking a good chunk of the wages as they act as intermediaries between customers and the workers who, otherwise, would have to be hired directly by the customers themselves.

I'm curious though about why would you think that illegal immigration is driving wages down. Undocumented immigrants make barely for 3% of the total US population [1], and that does not account for those who cannot work (elderly, children, disabled, etc.) Same goes for women, as the general issue is that household income is in decline, in relative terms to the economy [2].

Automation should also be making consumer products cheaper and more available, but prices are not going down at the same speed as wages need to go up.

[1] https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/how-many-und...

[2] https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Featured%20Insight...

Re: Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad (2019)

#163

Has anyone here made significant (2x exercise price) amounts from stock options at a non-unicorn in the last 5 years?

I have. Twice.

My situation is far more common than the people making millions from unicorns at IPO.

The majority of exits don't come from IPOs. They come from acquisitions of small-ish companies by big or medium size companies. These don't make headlines because they're not very noteworthy for the average person.

Re: Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad (2019)

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...at startups as employees, you dont get to see the cap table, so the whole maze is invisible too! I've never heard it adequately explained why employees should accept this state of affairs. Not only is the cap table invisible, but the fully-diluted cap table and terms of dilution and many other terms and conditions are also hidden from non-founders/investors at most startups I've read about. I've heard so many st…

I think I can explain it looking at some of the comments on the similar discussion yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25487130 It is the same as acting and sports -- people look the handful of winners, ignore the field of dropouts, and think they too can become a winner. They see AirBNB and think their startup is the next AirBNB. Also much like acting and sports, there are a constant stream of new entran…

> Also much like acting and sports, there are a constant stream of new entrants who have not learned the lessons.

That sounds like the general software startup industry has built their own version of video game industry goggles; glamorize the startup lifestyle and culture so much millions of kids will compete with each other into a race to the bottom. There's probably some succinct German compound word for this dynamic and if there isn't, I hope some German speakers can suggest some here so I can add it to my lexicon.

Re: Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad (2019)

#165

Has anyone here made significant (2x exercise price) amounts from stock options at a non-unicorn in the last 5 years?

I was part of a startup for a few days short of a year. We got acquired by Apple and I walked away with ~$400k after taxes (no 83-b election benefit). I’d say that was a significant amount for me for 1 year of work.

Re: Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad (2019)

#166
post #33

I think there are also tax implications of leaving a start-up with vested stock that you may not be able to sell on the market for another 8 years?

Actual stock, no. Options, which are probably more common than actual stock with start-ups, you have to pay tax on the "profit" when exercising them. Often, you only have a short time to exercise options when you leave a company.

Re: Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad (2019)

#167

The recent HN article on meritocracy comes to mind. I had never considered it this way in the past, but in the 70’s, productivity started decoupling massively from productivity gains. I.e. the best people at finance (meritocracy) figured out how to capture all the new earnings relative to the workers (who didn’t know this game was going on). This has snowballed into a situation where the financial meritocracy is comp…

I don't buy this explanation. Very few employees are paid in any financially complex way. Wages dropping overall must have a different explanation, which I suspect is an increase in labor supply due to women entering the labor force and illegal immigration combined with a decrease in demand due to automation.

It’s funny how economists never talk about this (women in the workforce). Its adding 50% more people to the workforce. Yes, it’s less because women might work less or part time, buts it’s an insanely high number in terms of market effects.

I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the reasons you simply can’t survive on one person per household working, as in the 60s and 70s, is simply that two people are willing to work now and spend all their free cash on mortgage payments.

No one talks about this. I’d love to hear the debates. I’d love to be proved wrong.

Re: Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad (2019)

#168
Another big difference in modern startups that wasn't mentioned in the article: It now takes more employees than ever before to get a startup company off the ground.

It's basic math: You can give more equity to early employees when you have fewer of them.

We have more services, frameworks, and technologies available to quickly build companies than ever before. Ironically, it somehow takes more engineers than ever to ship most products. The surface area and expectations for a modern product have grown substantially. Gone are the days when a couple of people would throw together a quick and ugly Rails application and then start trying to sell it to customers.

I wish we'd see more startups bucking the trend of doing complicated React websites with complex backends that look like someone was trying to use as many AWS product offerings as possible. Unfortunately, it's increasingly difficult to convince engineers to focus on the easy, simple problems. Everyone wants things to be as complex as possible so they can pad their resumes for the next job, whether or not the product calls for it.

Another factor is that interest rates are incredibly low right now. The cost of capital is so low that startup founders will often take excessive amounts of investment to grow faster and pad their runways. When it comes time for acquisition talks, the founders negotiate million-dollar "retention bonuses" with the acquiring company if their shares are worthless due excessive dilution and liquidation preferences. Works out well for founders, while employees get nothing.

Re: Startup Stock Options – Why A Good Deal Has Gone Bad (2019)

#169
just to a add a raw account of my experience for what it's worth:

I joined a startup as employee #1 and though I opted to have slightly more salary than shares I ended up with 3.2% of the shares.

I was with the startup long enough to fully vest and left with actual shares rather than share options (a product of me joining when the startup was just founded and had no share option scheme).

After I left at I believe the 3rd or 4th VC funding round an offer was made to buy my shares by a VC who wanted more ordinary stock to convert into a new series B non-dilution higher priority share class. All of the VC shares were of course non-dilutable.

I accepted the offer (I didn't have faith the company would IPO and felt the most likely exit - an acquihire - would come when I was far more diluted at far lower value) and after a very poorly communicated and drawn out process ("we'll pay you next week" for 4 months) I finally received payment valuing the company at around $35M at a diluted share holding of 1.3% netting roughly $500k gross.

Throughout I was assured that I would only have to pay a capital gains tax (I'm in the UK) and additionally received faulty independent advice that confirmed that this was the case, however 1 day before payment I was told that I'd have to pay roughly half at income tax and the other half via capital gains (the latter tops out at 20% in the UK so this was a huge difference and cost me $55k+).

This was done by the startup withholding the income tax and paying it directly on my behalf via the UK's Pay As You Earn (PAYE) scheme while leaving me to pay the capital gains later.

In the end I had to pay roughly 1/3 of the payout in tax netting me ~$350k.

I was paid out 7 years after I joined the company.

Overall I feel the dilution _was_ offset by the increase in value of the company, and the % I received was fair as to my contributions, but the tax arrangements were handled very poorly indeed and gave no room for a more efficient arrangement.

Given that I felt the shares were no more than lottery ticket toilet paper + suspected I'd get cheated in some way even if there was a payout the outcome was really really good and unexpected, and have in fact changed my life (I can now buy a house after years of misspending!)

But I definitely don't think the economics work out too well. I was paid probably half of the proper wage throughout and put up with a lot before vesting, having stayed there for 5 yrs that works out to $100k extra a year on top of the smaller salary (started at $50k roughly) - a FAANG or such would probably have paid the same by the end.

However at the time I joined I worked in a very unmarketable (and soul destroying) role and the position helped me change my career direction, gave me a lot of good experience and ended up paying out anyway.

I'd not work at a startup again (not only for salary vs. equity concerns) but I don't regret having worked at one.

Something of a stream of consciousness but perhaps it provides some kind of raw data to add to the pile!

Post reply on HN