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

Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs

reactionwheel.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–339 of 339 posts

Re: Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs

#331

Post by anamax »

mleonhard wrote: post #330
anamax wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unions don't necessarily get board observer status, let alone board seats, AKA a board vote. Having a board vote isn't the same has having a veto over every possible decision.

You seem to be replying to a different comment. > Having a board vote isn't the same has having a veto over every possible decision. My comment did not imply that a board vote grants veto power. I suggested that the union could "veto deals ... via strike or mass resignation". This means that the union decides on a maximum dilution and agrees to strike or resign if the board makes a deal that dilutes employee position…

Take that up with the person who wrote "[The union] could attend board meetings and veto deals that harm the employees via strike or mass resignation."

Board meetings are for board members, so I gave that person the benefit of the doubt.

My mistake.

Re: Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs

#332

Post by breischl »

jiveturkey wrote: post #189
breischl wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Had this happen on a much smaller scale as an employee. I (foolishly) bought out some of my options when I left the company. Years later they sold it, but structured the deal such that the major investors got paid out all the proceeds, leaving zero for the common shares. Yes, I realize preferred shares and payout preferences and so forth. The really galling part is that the exec team (who had themselves acquired, not…

What you're describing, though, is normal. The vast majority of deals happen this way. (We only hear about the tiny fraction where rank and file do make a dime or two, like we hear about the 10 heart conditions / COVID complication and suddenly the sky is falling.) Whereas, while the situation described by the GP is not unheard of, it's uncommon. Anyway, your situation is why the common mantra, value your stock optio…

It is normal, but a lot of the rank & file don't understand that ahead of time.

I also think that fact that management went out of their way to leave the common shares with nothing is scummy, bordering on unethical. Which is not the same as saying it's uncommon.

(FWIW, I was not one of the downvotes)

Re: Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs

#333

Post by [deleted] »

anamax wrote: post #331
mleonhard wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be replying to a different comment. > Having a board vote isn't the same has having a veto over every possible decision. My comment did not imply that a board vote grants veto power. I suggested that the union could "veto deals ... via strike or mass resignation". This means that the union decides on a maximum dilution and agrees to strike or resign if the board makes a deal that dilutes employee position…

Take that up with the person who wrote "[The union] could attend board meetings and veto deals that harm the employees via strike or mass resignation." Board meetings are for board members, so I gave that person the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

[deleted]

Re: Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs

#334

Post by mleonhard »

anamax wrote: post #331
mleonhard wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be replying to a different comment. > Having a board vote isn't the same has having a veto over every possible decision. My comment did not imply that a board vote grants veto power. I suggested that the union could "veto deals ... via strike or mass resignation". This means that the union decides on a maximum dilution and agrees to strike or resign if the board makes a deal that dilutes employee position…

Take that up with the person who wrote "[The union] could attend board meetings and veto deals that harm the employees via strike or mass resignation." Board meetings are for board members, so I gave that person the benefit of the doubt. My mistake.

You seem to be attacking the weakest part of my idea and ignoring the strongest parts. Apparently, there is a new word for this: dunking [0]. Please stop.

Your replies go against the guidelines [1]:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29352131

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs

#335

Post by munificent »

kragen wrote: post #244
munificent wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I intensely dislike the cynicism of this and other similar statements. It's a truism of American culture that any group of people is somehow stupider, meaner, and more hurtful than any of its individual members. Yet our lived daily experience is that often our most rewarding, beneficial, and joyful experiences come when being a member of a group. I mean, we are a group right here and right now in this thread and I as…

> I assume everyone participating still feels it is a net positive for them to do so. No, I don't, and I think some of the other people who think that are probably wrong.

Unless you are and out and out masochist, your presence here indicates the contrary.

Re: Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs

#336

Post by jiveturkey »

redshirtrob wrote: post #226
jiveturkey wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't getting hit by AMT, the company is not growing fast enough and you should not exercise. If you are getting hit by AMT, the chances are you are out the exercise cost plus the AMT.

I've done exactly what you're saying I should not do and it worked out very well. My point is that these hard and fast rules don't leave any room for nuance. Consider, as I mentioned in another comment, you don't have to exercise 100% of your options. Exercise whatever makes you comfortable. Maybe that's one under the number that would push you into AMT. If zero is your comfort level, then so be it. But get to that c…

Preface: humans are really bad at assessing risk. Also, you can't help but be biased in the decision process. Most people want a chance at the golden ticket. Especially after all that hard work we put in! We deserve a payout! What was I going to do with the $10,000 anyway, really? It won't break me.

The people that can make a reasoned and well considered, as impartial as possible judgement about it don't need to be told to do so. In fact, a statement that one should never buy the options can and mostly will (rightly so) just be ignored by such people.

But, judging by the number of people that have NO CLUE about how it works, need only the tiniest thing to grab onto to make the wrong decision. There is zero need to recommend "well consider your risk". If you have to ask, then my advice is always as I gave it: not to skip it as a rule, but if you re-read you'll notice all I said was, the odds are not in your favor and you "should" just leave the options behind. I think there is a subtle but important difference. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, if so, sorry.

You're actually arguing survivor bias as being some kind of counter argument! You are in the pretty small minority, I do hope you understand that.

Tell me, how do you feel about COVID vaccine? Shouldn't we just be allowed to make up our own mind about it? If masks and vaccines work, well the scientific set can wear masks and vaccine up. The anti-vax crowd can do as they please and die. We don't need the government to TELL US what to do, do we? No one gets out alive anyway, amirite?

What is your recommendation on COVID? Evaluate the risk and decide for yourself? Surely you prefer Florida's or Texas' take on COVID to California's then?

I now come full circle: humans are really bad at assessing risk.

Re: Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs

#337

Post by shard »

cutemonster wrote: post #326
shard wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For anyone not aware, this method of discussing individually with stakeholders ahead of time before any decision or approval meetings is a common way to make the meetings go smoothly. Stakeholders won't be surprised by any items you bring up, you won't be surprised by anything they bring up and can address issues ahead of time, nobody will be embarrassed at the meeting (you really don't want to surprise a VP with som…

> discussing individually with stakeholders ahead of time Do you email them and schedule an ahead-of-time personal meeting in your calendars, or do you just (more informally) call them?

For the stakeholders I talk to, I schedule meetings since their schedules are usually packed, but I can see situations where just pinging them informally would do.

Re: Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs

#338

Post by cutemonster »

shard wrote: post #337
cutemonster wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> discussing individually with stakeholders ahead of time Do you email them and schedule an ahead-of-time personal meeting in your calendars, or do you just (more informally) call them?

For the stakeholders I talk to, I schedule meetings since their schedules are usually packed, but I can see situations where just pinging them informally would do.

Thanks :-)

Re: Boards are dangerous to founder/CEOs

#339

Post by kragen »

munificent wrote: post #335
kragen wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I assume everyone participating still feels it is a net positive for them to do so. No, I don't, and I think some of the other people who think that are probably wrong.

Unless you are and out and out masochist, your presence here indicates the contrary.

The fact that I'm engaging in self-destructive behavior doesn't imply that I enjoy it. Do you think smokers, alcoholics, and victims of domestic abuse are "out-and-out masochists" too?
Post reply on HN