181–190 of 274 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least with the auto industry, the unions were able to offer some protections for the worker. How many programmers belong to a union?
Unions can't do anything about the company you're working for running out of resources. That's not what they are for.
I remember clearly when I was in a similar situation with the sale of a company I helped start in 1999. All this gain on paper which required (because of the Alternative Minimum Tax rule) that I pay taxes on gains I had not realized. And then later realizing an actual loss. And the decade afterwards of getting $3,000/year that I could claim against my taxes. The only reason I'm not still claiming my $3,000 a year is…
Quoting from the article:
>Employees had little idea that an outside appraisal firm had valued Good at $434 million and the common stock at about 88 cents a share as of June 30, according to investor documents and legal filings.
It just sounds to me like the greed on management's side trumped anything the employees may have had.
Thanks for your story. I was part of a startup which sold as well. One employee was left with a tax burden to pay off, and I broke out even ($0 from sale, no tax). The founder took home money though......
I think it's important that people hear these stories when deciding what their personal reasons are for joining a company.
Is there some other industry where, when a company stumbles, its employees don't get hurt? I live in Michigan, and when the car industry "stumbled" everyone I locally know at least knew someone who got hit, at the very very least with long-term stagnant wages even as their responsibilities amped up to cover the missing people, and they were the ones who came out relatively unscathed. I mean, the details of the articl…
At least with the auto industry, the unions were able to offer some protections for the worker. How many programmers belong to a union?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The common stock holders' interests were poorly represented in the price negotiation. You're mistaken here. Your point rests on there being a possibility that Blackberry paid the same amount for the company (the valuation), but common stock holders got more (the waterfall). This was not possible.
But the people negotiating the deal with Blackberry knew how the waterfall would shake out. They elected to agree to a price where the share of the purchase price distributed across common stockholders left many employees in a bad place. That was a choice. As was structuring the ownership of the company, and the compensation offers to their employees, in that way in the first place.
They also could not have changed the waterfall. So I'm not sure what your point is, really
I remember clearly when I was in a similar situation with the sale of a company I helped start in 1999. All this gain on paper which required (because of the Alternative Minimum Tax rule) that I pay taxes on gains I had not realized. And then later realizing an actual loss. And the decade afterwards of getting $3,000/year that I could claim against my taxes. The only reason I'm not still claiming my $3,000 a year is…
Thanks for sharing your story. When you got the stock, was it issued as option grant, or actual stock grant? What would your advice be to people who hold most of their "investment" in a single companies stock?
> What would your advice be to people who hold most
> of their "investment" in a single companies stock?
A lot of people I knew in the dot com boom sold their stock and bought houses. That converted a fluctuating value asset into something they could live in regardless of its "value". They looked like geniuses in 2001. When we sold the company I had helped start I took a chunk of the proceeds and put it into a separate account to help my kids college education. (it wasn't a 529 but simply a named account that my financial planner helped set up).
Doesn't have to be fancy, putting proceeds into and S&P500 ETF is simple, low cost, and the S&P 500 has out performed a lot of single company stocks. (and underperformed some to be honest but you are trading future value against risk).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for sharing your story. When you got the stock, was it issued as option grant, or actual stock grant? What would your advice be to people who hold most of their "investment" in a single companies stock?
Actually by that time it was all employee purchase program (EPP) stock. You could put up to 10% of your post-tax income into a plan that every 6 months would buy stock at either 85% of the market price, or the 'lock in' price, which ever was lower, and the lock in price was set the first time you started the program, held for 2 years and then reset each 2 years after that. > What would your advice be to people who ho…
While working at Boeing, their EPP allowed you to purchase Boeing Stock, or invest in a managed fund. This was post 9/11 so their stock was hurting, so I invested 90% into their stock.
These days in the startup world, folks are given Restricted Options, which don't offer a lot of flexibility.
Even with a public event, employees have a 180 day lockup period before they can sell any vested options.
This article is written as if it's the startup's fault that tax laws are irrational. Doesn't reflect well on the NYT.
It would be a strange reading of this article to conclude that this one company invented US tax law. But, if the company heavily compensates people with an asset that has irrational tax laws, then it does seem like they bare responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is extremely good advice in the parent post. For those new to the game, please read it closely. I've been with 5 startups over the last 15 years. Each had developed good, commercially-viable, revenue-generating tech. But, in all cases, instead of going IPO, each was acquired. And, usually they were acquired by other investors' or board members' companies (sometimes at a loss). I would love to know the actual st…
> And, usually they were acquired by other investors' or board members' companies (at a loss). Holy shit is that even legal? It seems like a giant conflict of interest.
I'm going to keep repeating this comment until the world hears it--I think most people joining startups are being taken advantage of without realizing it. Sorry to be repeating myself: If you're primarily interested in making money, or if you love the startup but not the compensation, you should NOT work at that startup. If you're a good developer, you can get a better deal by working at an established company and si…
Sorry to nitpick, but how exactly does the math work out if the $100k is presumably drawn from post-tax income?