Live data from Hacker News

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

steveblank.com

321–330 of 379 posts

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

#321
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. What happened was that in the 70s energy got expensive. As renewables and battery tech get cheaper, we'll see bigger gains across the board. The "evil bankers" stuff is mostly a just so story to explain away the slowing of real growth for the last 40 years.

> What happened was that in the 70s energy got expensive. Only temporarily. Energy today, adjusted for inflation, is actually quite a bit cheaper now than it was even before the early 70s oil crisis.

Nope [1]

Lord grant me the confidence of a HN commentor talking about economics :/

[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=WTISPLC,

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

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. What happened was that in the 70s energy got expensive. As renewables and battery tech get cheaper, we'll see bigger gains across the board. The "evil bankers" stuff is mostly a just so story to explain away the slowing of real growth for the last 40 years.

> What happened was that in the 70s energy got expensive. Well, sure, but not durably so; the most dramatic examples being a pair of transitory geopolitical events producing short-term supply shocks.

No. This graph puts it in better perspective. Why comment with so much certainty when you clearly didn't check? God I hate this place.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=WTISPLC,

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

#323
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…

I’m surprised to hear this- my startup offers (YC companies) were typically half of what my FAANG offers were.

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

#324
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

This is definitely going to be a debate depending on what market you're looking at. But I don't think it's up for debate that if someone is leaving a FAANG position to join a start up, or debating between the two options, that they are taking a non-trivial pay-cut for the start-up.

Yeah, absolutely. My FAANG offers were ~2x what my startup offers were.

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

#325

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

Throwaway account for obvious reasons. I co-founded a company that had an over subscribed series B and I was able to sell a chunk of my shares to a previous investor in a secondary post B. Not technically options as I bought my common shares when we started the company and filed an 83b letter. Bought shares for $0.0005 and had about a 6000x multiple when I sold them (at a discount to the preferred price from our priced round).

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

#326

I was part of a leadership team at a startup for 4.5 years (went from 10 to 200 employees, series A and B). During that time I accumulated a significant number of stock options which could potentially make me a millionaire. I left the company because my salary was incredibly low relative other companies in the same area. I have left and I have no possibility of exercising the options. I technically could but that wou…

[deleted]

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

#327
post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, are you able to share more? Or if you know where I might be able to read more about this?

I'm definitely not an expert on options contracts, but the examples of clauses I've seen are: (In the options exercise agreement): "All certificates evidencing shares purchased under this agreement shall bear the following legend: "The shares represented hereby may not be sold, assigned, ..., except in compliance with the terms of a written agreement between the company and the registered holder..."" (On the share ce…

There are reasons to do this also, as the number of shareholders can trigger reporting requirements even if you are private (jurisdiction dependent, of course).

In my opinion selling within the existing pool shouldn't be restricted, but this could become a sticky issue around board control so that probably contributes to the desire to control/curtail it.

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

#328

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…

Blaming bankers and proposing revolution is one of those explanations that sounds satisfying but doesn’t really match the evidence. In some ways, as markets have become more efficient and transparent it becomes harder, not easier, for finance people to simply squeeze money out of the systems through financial tricks. We’re also living in a world where interest rates are at historical lows, making the cost of capital…

> Blaming bankers and proposing revolution is one of those explanations that sounds satisfying but doesn’t really match the evidence.

Writing 6 paragraphs about why bankers shouldn't be blamed doesn't really match reality.

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

#330
post #314
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These charts aren't showing wealth, they're showing money. Money is not wealth. For example, suppose you have a car that you paid $20K in cash for this year. That works out to about $10K 30 years ago (I think the Fed charts you showed are in inflation-adjusted dollars, though they don't say so). So as far as monetary vaue is concerned, you have the same net worth in your $20K car today as a person 30 years ago would…

Yes, cars and computers have gotten cheaper relative to their quality. So what? Health care and education have gotten more expensive. Inflation-adjusted money is a pretty good proxy for wealth. What else is there?

"Health care and education have gotten more expensive. "

I apologize because I don't mean to only present disagreements but I don't think this is true, either.

I think that like-for-like health care has largely fallen in cost. The catch with health care is that we've developed better (and much more expensive) methods. Spending has increased dramatically. My grandparents grew up on a farm and when they broke a bone they set it at home. They saw a doctor on very rare occasions and when they did, treatment was limited. Their health care spending was very small, but so was the scope of their treatment. When my grandparents got cancer, they died. There were not nearly so many expensive options available for end of life ailments.

It's possible to live with the same kind of spartan health care today, but almost no one would because we are fantastically more wealthy than past generations.

Willingness to buy more is exactly what we would expect to see if wealth has risen over time, as I am arguing. The status quo rises dramatically as overall wealth increases.

Education is tricky as it's largely a fashion product at this point. Knowledge itself is often freely available in ways impossible to imagine decades ago. It's the prestige and pedigree that cost money. Fashionable limited-quantity things get wildly expensive as wealth increases.

Post reply on HN