I have calculated my hourly rate including the money I would get after the IPO with 40USD share price and it came out around 100 USD. This is extremely sad given that I am senior engineer, imagine what somebody in a lower paid position gets. I think generally speaking, it is not worth it to work for 12 hours a day for a startup and get 10K shares over 5 years. If you actually work 8 hours and in your spare time doing a side project you might end up way better. You could get the ideas from the 4hour work week book.
Employee Equity
141–150 of 342 posts
Re: Employee Equity
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
overperformance is far more dangerous (in large companies) than underperformance. Why? Can you explain.
You alienate yourself with respect to your peers and your boss will think you are trying to take their job. Nearly everyone around you will consider you a threat. That is my take and my experience from that statement. The best thing to do after having been tainted by startup education is to go into consulting.
You alienate yourself with respect to your peers and your boss will think you are trying to take their job. Nearly everyone around you will consider you a threat.
Bingo. You fucking nailed it.
The best thing to do after having been tainted by startup education is to go into consulting.
How easy is that? I'm considering that avenue for myself, largely because I'm sick of office politics, re-orgs, and other time-wasting bullshit. With a consulting arrangement, there's no expectation (on either side) of a long-term deal and I think that's better, because most companies renege on their side of the social contract (e.g. investing in their people's careers.)
How do consultants find good ($100+ per hour) work? If I could get the same take-home pay as a consultant, I'd do it in a heartbeat. I'm honest enough to know that I'm not a team player (unless I assemble the team) but I do great work and I'd rather be in a place where that's respected.
Re: Employee Equity
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now I work at a large tech company in SV and wont be involved in another startup unless I'm a founder. You're making the right call. I'm probably older than you and I've done two startups. My career hasn't recovered from the lost time. Total waste. Most startups (by startup, I mean "company focused on such rapid growth that VC investment is mandatory") are pure shit. They fuck up your finances, drain your emotional r…
overperformance is far more dangerous (in large companies) than underperformance. Why? Can you explain.
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
The Gervais Principle is a fascinating series of articles that explain why this is the case and also give a lot of insight into corporate America. It's a great read.
Re: Employee Equity
#144[deleted]
Re: Employee Equity
#145I've worked at two startups, including one YC. Both were acquired by larger tech companies. I was employee #3 at one and rebuilt most of a broken codebase in the other. I got nothing out of either WRT options. I agree with the author on point 4 but I don't think more options are the answer, I should have just asked for a higher salary I would have been better off. Startup-bucks are even worse than a lottery ticket, b…
Now I work at a large tech company in SV and wont be involved in another startup unless I'm a founder. You're making the right call. I'm probably older than you and I've done two startups. My career hasn't recovered from the lost time. Total waste. Most startups (by startup, I mean "company focused on such rapid growth that VC investment is mandatory") are pure shit. They fuck up your finances, drain your emotional r…
Speaking of "real autonomy", did you put any further thought into your idea of Autonomy Funds[0]?
I thought it was very intriguing, if perhaps hard to get off the ground. Definitely would be a good antidote to the kind of SV craziness you describe, but of course not really in line with the status quo. I'd like to see some more discussion on this, and maybe get involved (though my business knowledge is near nil).
Re: Employee Equity
#146Maybe startups should abandon the stock market process entirely and issue a new cryptocurrency instead. The founders can pre-mine whatever percentage they wish and then pay employees in part in that currency, which would be traded on an exchange the same way stocks currently are.
Re: Employee Equity
#147I've worked at two startups, including one YC. Both were acquired by larger tech companies. I was employee #3 at one and rebuilt most of a broken codebase in the other. I got nothing out of either WRT options. I agree with the author on point 4 but I don't think more options are the answer, I should have just asked for a higher salary I would have been better off. Startup-bucks are even worse than a lottery ticket, b…
" Startup-bucks are even worse than a lottery ticket.... " Also because if they are worth something, it's a motivation for the company to fire you before you can cash out. E.g. while the discrimination case against Google was settled out of court for undisclosed terms, whatever the motivation, the timing of the firing of Brian Reid 9 days before the company's IPO was clearly not an accident. (119,000 options, $10 mil…
I don't think we're in a post-IPO world. We were just in a temporary dip: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/ipo-count-reaches-218-a-postte...
Re: Employee Equity
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now I work at a large tech company in SV and wont be involved in another startup unless I'm a founder. You're making the right call. I'm probably older than you and I've done two startups. My career hasn't recovered from the lost time. Total waste. Most startups (by startup, I mean "company focused on such rapid growth that VC investment is mandatory") are pure shit. They fuck up your finances, drain your emotional r…
overperformance is far more dangerous (in large companies) than underperformance. Why? Can you explain.
Most underperformers don't really cause any problems. They work slowly and can't be assigned anything important, but over time the organization can adapt to them. Consequently, nothing really happens to them until there's a general belt-tightening. Usually, because people don't like being dicks and most underperformers aren't disliked, they're rolled into a general layoff and get a severance.
Overperformers, on the other hand, draw attention and animosity. People may say they like change, innovation and creativity. Abstractly, they do. At work, when they're trying to hold position within an organization that would throw them under the bus without hesitation, they hate change (except change that they control) and anything that smells remotely like it might be a challenge to their authority, reputation, or power, no matter how remote that challenge may be.
I'm seriously considering going into consulting, specifically because it's the one employment structure where overperformance isn't catastrophic. The worst result of overperformance is that you automate yourself out of a job, but that usually leads to another, better, one.
If you're an underperformer, you might get laid off in a year or two. You'll typically have a severance or warning because people will still generally like you as long as you're not an asshole.
If you're an overperformer, then unless you have someone powerful who goes out of his way to protect you, you're going to be fired (on a bogus "performance" case where you're set up to fail) in 3 months. You're also probably the type of person who, when served with a PIP despite being one the biggest assets to the company, will go nuclear, create morale-killing spectacles, and be talked about for years afterward. (Not that I know anyone like that...)
Underperformers can move along. With 2-3 years on their resumes, no one asks any questions. Overperformers often blow up spectacularly and develop reputation problems because, even if they're abstractly admirable, they didn't know the rules.
Re: Employee Equity
#149Earlier quoted context omitted.
From a company's point of view, wouldn't that really suck, having all of these outstanding shares in limbo? I'd imagine at least part of the 90-day thing is just so that the company knows the status of those shares. For an employee, the company is holding those out as a carrot for you: someday those shares might pay off, if you work hard. For a former employee, he/she gets 90 days to decide whether to pony up the cas…
Is it really more difficult to keep track of than regular shares? It's easy to decide if the stock might be purchased: if the IPO/acquisition is priced above strike price, then they obviously will be bought, and otherwise will not. It is indeed not useful to the company, and a great upside for the employee. Out of all suggestions in the article, this is probably the most employee-friendly. But that's not a bad thing…
"IPO/acquisition"
that's not the only option. The company could remain privately owned - in which case you want to have below 100 shareholders so that you can remain a C corp
Re: Employee Equity
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is attractive for someone out of college, but if you're trying to attract someone senior with a YouTube/Google/LinkedIn/Facebook/Twitter exit in their resume (and sometimes multiple of those, not that uncommon in the Valley), your fair salary is likely to be less than the total package they can get elsewhere.
In that case odds are the startup doesn't have sufficient funds to pay for the talent it (thinks it) needs. I'd argue that this means the startup is: a) mistaken about its needs; b) poorly run; or c) a bad idea (e.g. the price the target market is willing to pay is insufficient to support even the optimally efficient startup's costs to provide service).
Well, one way to attract quality people without sufficient funds is to be generous with equity. The more senior you get, the less sensitive potential early hires are to the salary levels - their investment income alone is likely to be multiples of whatever you plan to offer salary-wise. Getting them sold on owning a larger stake in an interesting company will probably get them excited.