They gave up some money to reward valuable employees. That's not, per se , being magnanimous or generous, it's being smart businessmen. All of these founders made out just fine, financially. When they start their next big thing, they'll be remembered not only as the guys who had a successful exit, they'll be remembered as the guys took care of their people along the way. That's about the smartest way to recruit top t…
> That's not, per se, being magnanimous or generous, it's being smart businessmen.
They gave up some money to reward valuable employees. That's not, per se , being magnanimous or generous, it's being smart businessmen. All of these founders made out just fine, financially. When they start their next big thing, they'll be remembered not only as the guys who had a successful exit, they'll be remembered as the guys took care of their people along the way. That's about the smartest way to recruit top t…
I think this is generous but it really should be the norm. People who join start ups suffer a huge opportunity cost--hundreds of thousands of dollars in RSUs
Do employee stock options usually not vest automatically upon acquisition? The SinglePlatform story made it sound like employees get screwed if there's an early exit before their options had fully vested.
An acceleration on change of ownership clause is considered a poison pill.
This comment reads as entitled to me. Startup founders have an insane number of things on their plate, and that list just keeps growing and growing. Startup employees work hard, but the founders still bear most of the risk and responsibility. What really needs to happen is for new ways to organize startups to distribute the risks and responsibilities better, so that it's not up to the goodness of the founder's heart…
> Startup employees work hard, but the founders still bear most of the risk and responsibility. As much as I am a fan of startups and their founders, this statement seems excessive. In many cases, the financial risks are passed on to either angel investors or VCs (there are some startups funded by the founders' own savings or mortgages, which is a big risk, but there are still many that aren't). I don't see any signi…
They gave up some money to reward valuable employees. That's not, per se , being magnanimous or generous, it's being smart businessmen. All of these founders made out just fine, financially. When they start their next big thing, they'll be remembered not only as the guys who had a successful exit, they'll be remembered as the guys took care of their people along the way. That's about the smartest way to recruit top t…
That's a pretty cynical worldview. If a founder doesn't have to share his wealth because of a bunch of paper and decides to do it anyway that is generous first and possibly good business second. After all there is no obligation on his part to ever do another start-up, there is no obligation on those rewarded to join in the future and the incidence of 'repeat teams' is low enough that I don't think it is a factor at a…
Do employee stock options usually not vest automatically upon acquisition? The SinglePlatform story made it sound like employees get screwed if there's an early exit before their options had fully vested.
That very much depends on the contract. I have said this before and I'll repeat it on the off chance that it will save someone's bacon one day: insist on accelerated vesting clauses in change of control situations.
Is it easy to negotiate a change or add an acceleration clause in the options grant? Seems like those docs are set in stone and very hard to change without board approvals etc.
This comment reads as entitled to me. Startup founders have an insane number of things on their plate, and that list just keeps growing and growing. Startup employees work hard, but the founders still bear most of the risk and responsibility. What really needs to happen is for new ways to organize startups to distribute the risks and responsibilities better, so that it's not up to the goodness of the founder's heart…
> Startup employees work hard, but the founders still bear most of the risk and responsibility. As much as I am a fan of startups and their founders, this statement seems excessive. In many cases, the financial risks are passed on to either angel investors or VCs (there are some startups funded by the founders' own savings or mortgages, which is a big risk, but there are still many that aren't). I don't see any signi…
Risk of employees is actually a lot higher than that of a founder. Founders have access to crucial financial information, employees do not. Thus higher risk. Founders have all the control, employees do not. Thus higher risk. Founders can make almost arbitrary hiring/firing decisions that can affect a future (!) career of an employee. Last, but not least, employees may need a reference from their former bosses, founders don't.
It's sad that this behavior is unusual enough to be noteworthy.
This comment reads as entitled to me. Startup founders have an insane number of things on their plate, and that list just keeps growing and growing. Startup employees work hard, but the founders still bear most of the risk and responsibility. What really needs to happen is for new ways to organize startups to distribute the risks and responsibilities better, so that it's not up to the goodness of the founder's heart…
I think it's far more entitled to think that because someone had a good idea and either connections, money, or a great pitch that they are entitled to 1000x more money than the people who actually turned the concept from a napkin into reality.
During the previous bubble I was employee #20 of a company that ended up having a $900M exit 5 years later.. I got less than 100k out of the deal. Do I think I was entitled to 50 million dollars? No way.. but I certainly think I added at LEAST 1 million dollars worth of that value.