Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Some tech founders are getting huge pay packages

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: Some tech founders are getting huge pay packages

#11

Post by marstall »

aspaceman wrote: post #8
random_savv wrote: post #4

The article seems to speak of stock awards and not salary, despite what the title says. "Today’s Tech Founders Don’t Just Own the Company. They’re Also Getting Huge Pay Packages." How are these stock awards different to owning the company? If anything, those stock awards sound less attractive as they should be options at a very high valuation? In effect, isn't this the same as later VCs reallocating the cap table in…

> How are these stock awards different to owning the company? You're already expecting way too much intelligence from a journalist.

this is the wsj? they're going to get information about company stock and executive compensation right.

Re: Some tech founders are getting huge pay packages

#12

Post by andy_ppp »

I mean what is a huge salary? There’s so much money flowing around at the top of society where it’s in the interest of tech investors to get the best founders and companies working for them I think investment is going to be larger which will inevitably trickle down to salaries. Weirdly it’s actually much better to not take a large salary and have the lowest possible burn rate to reduce the need for investment diluting your steak.

Re: Some tech founders are getting huge pay packages

#14

Post by iamstupidsimple »

batty_alex wrote: post #9

So… Tech founders are now following the Facebook model: non-voting shares, enriching themselves, keeping most of the power Everyone is done pretending to be the “good founder,” that ship seems to have sailed

The less power controlled by the investor class, the better.

Re: Some tech founders are getting huge pay packages

#15

Post by yarky »

random_savv wrote: post #4

The article seems to speak of stock awards and not salary, despite what the title says. "Today’s Tech Founders Don’t Just Own the Company. They’re Also Getting Huge Pay Packages." How are these stock awards different to owning the company? If anything, those stock awards sound less attractive as they should be options at a very high valuation? In effect, isn't this the same as later VCs reallocating the cap table in…

> If anything, those stock awards sound less attractive as they should be options at a very high valuation?

An option to buy something at a certain price isn't the same as just getting the something. As mentioned in the article, ceo compensation consists usually of stock + options (et al.) tied to performance targets.

> In effect, isn't this the same as later VCs reallocating the cap table in favour of the founders (and against earlier investor and employees)?

Sort of, that's the point of the article. Apparently, new founders take on too much early financing.

Re: Some tech founders are getting huge pay packages

#16

Post by JumpCrisscross »

random_savv wrote: post #4

The article seems to speak of stock awards and not salary, despite what the title says. "Today’s Tech Founders Don’t Just Own the Company. They’re Also Getting Huge Pay Packages." How are these stock awards different to owning the company? If anything, those stock awards sound less attractive as they should be options at a very high valuation? In effect, isn't this the same as later VCs reallocating the cap table in…

> How are these stock awards different to owning the company?

Getting (a) stock worth $800mm and (b) investing some lesser fraction many years ago that winds up being worth $800mm are very, very different different.

> those stock awards sound less attractive as they should be options at a very high valuation?

They are. (Well, sort of. Robinhood grants RSUs that vest depending on the stock price, with only 20% of the pre-IPO grants vesting at the current price and 0% of the post-IPO grants vesting until the stock price at least triples within the next 8 years [1].)

Getting (a) $800mm in cash versus (b) an option theoretically worth $800mm but which must be held to expiration are very, very different.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001783879/000162828... page 226, Narrative Description of Executive Compensation Arrangements

Re: Some tech founders are getting huge pay packages

#17

Post by chrisseaton »

random_savv wrote: post #4

The article seems to speak of stock awards and not salary, despite what the title says. "Today’s Tech Founders Don’t Just Own the Company. They’re Also Getting Huge Pay Packages." How are these stock awards different to owning the company? If anything, those stock awards sound less attractive as they should be options at a very high valuation? In effect, isn't this the same as later VCs reallocating the cap table in…

> The article seems to speak of stock awards and not salary, despite what the title says.

Doesn't the title say 'pay package'? Stock awards are part of your pay package. Where did you read 'salary'?

Re: Some tech founders are getting huge pay packages

#18

Post by JumpCrisscross »

iamstupidsimple wrote: post #14
batty_alex wrote: post #9

So… Tech founders are now following the Facebook model: non-voting shares, enriching themselves, keeping most of the power Everyone is done pretending to be the “good founder,” that ship seems to have sailed

The less power controlled by the investor class, the better.

> less power controlled by the investor class, the better

Define "better." Because it apparently doesn't include reducing carbon emissions [1] or increasing returns [2]. Nor, for that matter, creating and supporting the forum you're on.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-US/news/topstocks/chevron-plans-big-l...

[2] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/12/23/a-successful-case...

Re: Some tech founders are getting huge pay packages

#20

Post by cryptica »

What we have now is essentially feudalism except instead of titles (king, queen, prince, duke, earl, knight, bishop, ...) everyone is assigned some numbers (net worth, salary). The numbers of lower ranking people are decided by higher ranking people and can be overruled only by even higher ranking people. Instead of rank being determined based on proximity to the king, it is determined based on proximity to politicians and the money printers.

All narratives about the self-made founder are complete BS. There is no meritocracy at all. That's why privilege is such a big topic nowadays except where the narrative is wrong is that it's not only about race. It's about proximity to the politicians and the money printers. Proximity to the centers of power is the only thing that counts. Successful entrepreneurs are not value creators, they are not contributors to society, they're just glorified courtesans whom, with the approval of their masters, are granted bigger numbers in exchange for loyalty and compliance. Value creation is a thing of the past. It does not get rewarded anymore.

The entrepreneur of 50 years ago has nothing to do with the modern entrepreneur. They are completely different. The system we have today is feudalism but it markets itself as capitalism in order to onboard people.

There is no free market. Central banks and their courtesans pump money into the system to decide all the prices from the top down. They can point the printer in any direction and that's where the entire global economy will go.

Post reply on HN