41–50 of 89 posts
Today’s tech founders who are lucky are getting huge pay packages. Plenty of small time founders out there who didn't start a unicorn.
The last good data I saw (which I believe was 2017?) had median founder ownership at large exit for VC funded startups as something like 11%
For example - I've heard founders getting bonuses or being able to sell stock in later rounds to stay focused on longer terms, and that CEOs typically get the same salary but more equity than CTOs (YC is unusual in that it encourages equal splits).
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 a CEO owns 60% from the beginning, that's already built into the cap table no matter how big the company gets. If they get RSUs as incentives later on, the company is still footing the bill for giving them an $500 million in stock - an asset the company owned that could have otherwise been converted to cash.
The article doesn't do a great job explaining why giving bonuses later is so much more expensive for the company and its shareholders
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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...
Probably better for employees. Canadian Pacific was a well governed, profitable company when Bill Ackerman raided the company and laid off 4500 unionized workers to goose the share price. I would be furious if a sociopathic activist investor did this to my company.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/C...
CP was languishing until Ackman fired their CEO in 2011 and put Hunter Harrison at the helm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I upvoted you for an interesting analogy which certainly does hold significant truth. But you're actually arguing that the percent of entrepreneurs who are rent-seeking has actually increased over the past 50 years? I really doubt this is true. I especially doubt it over the past few hundred years. At least on that scale, the world seems to be getting more meritocratic, not less. But heck, I don't really know. You ce…
Yes I started many businesses. My personal experience matches my comment exactly. All the ventures where I created value didn't earn me anything, even though one of these ventures was very popular. I only started to earn passive income after I became laser-focused on making money and playing internal politics (I got involved in cryptocurrency). But even then, I could see people who were truly 'crony' succeed by produ…
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 dilutin…
A good place to start is with Kohn's "Punished by Rewards", which covers a fair bit of research on how intrinsic motivation is undermined by extrinsic motivation. The people I know who are great at something do it because they truly love it. Whereas the most money-motivated people I meet focus a lot of their attention not on the actual topic, but the getting of money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably better for employees. Canadian Pacific was a well governed, profitable company when Bill Ackerman raided the company and laid off 4500 unionized workers to goose the share price. I would be furious if a sociopathic activist investor did this to my company.
I don't think it was "well governed". It was bloated and inefficient. Look at the operating ratio over time between CP and it's direct competitor CN - the lower the better. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/C... CP was languishing until Ackman fired their CEO in 2011 and put Hunter Harrison at the helm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The less power controlled by the investor class, the better.
Honestly. Some people are just impossible to please short of every company becoming a completely worker owned cooperative.
For those interested in the topic, I recommend reading "A Lapsed Anarchist's Approach to Building a Great Business". [1] Years ago a grad student went to the University of Michigan to study their large collection of anarchist literature. As a sideline, he started the now-legendary Zingerman's Deli. Over the years, it spun off a large collection of associated businesses, each run by some of the workers. Lots of interesting ideas, ones backed by real-world success.
'1] https://www.zingermans.com/Product/zingermans-guide-to-good-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it was "well governed". It was bloated and inefficient. Look at the operating ratio over time between CP and it's direct competitor CN - the lower the better. https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/C... CP was languishing until Ackman fired their CEO in 2011 and put Hunter Harrison at the helm.
So paying employees the minimum amount possible is efficient to you? Maybe it results in better short-term profits, but it destroys the company long-term.
Did pay go down? I don't think that's accurate.
Paying a bunch of excess employees, yes, that's not efficient. That's practically textbook inefficient.
Are we really on a forum run by a VC debating capitalism?
