Live data from Hacker News

There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

hunterwalk.medium.com

251–260 of 326 posts

Re: There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

#251
post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People doubled their money on paper in unrealized gains. But since Bitcoin is being sold as a store of value and not as a medium of exchange nowadays, if you want to realize that value you need to sell. Where's that cash coming from? Other buyers, i.e. the next layer of suckers as indicated in OP's post. And if enough people decide to sell, then those doubled/tripled/etc values aren't going to last very long. Note I'…

The stock market is zero sum as well... When one person wins, another loses. Are people buying Google, Facebook and Amazon stock suckers as well?

Well, no comment on if they're suckers or not, but I think this is a misunderstanding of what a share in a company is. With a share, you own something with actual tangential value, i.e. claim on dividends/voting rights/cash flow/etc. Plus the company itself can actually go and do valuable things and make money - Apple can go and sell a bunch of iPhones and make a ton of money, and then reward their investors through dividends, buybacks, etc. That's not zero sum, there was something of value created and provided to the world. I do understand that in reality many people play the stock market like it's a casino, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still fundamentally different.

Re: There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

#252
post #9

I'm not sure why everyone seems so focused on the cafeteria thing. I'm not sure people and their attitudes towards amenities are really the problem here. From my understanding, the differerence is the companywide attitude to risk. A startup has a "grow at any cost, or maybe perish" attitude. If things go south, bankruptcy will take care of the leftover excess risk (barring criminal charges). A bigco cannot easily go…

It’s a combination of risk and forced standardization. Big companies try to standardize to allow C players to perform as Bs. This crushes As.

I have yet to see this mythical standardization on big companies.

Re: There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

#253
post #77

When I was at PowerBI in Microsoft, all the execs hailed it as Startup within Microsoft. Come work here instead of Uber. I worked like a dog, sometimes till 2am in morning. My manager would routinely ask us to come on weekends. I was naive, I thought we are growing customer base, this is what a startup looks like. The ultimate realization was in a startup you have equity, a decent amount in a good startup. At Microso…

>The ultimate realization was in a startup you have equity, a decent amount in a good startup. At Microsoft it was a base salary and set amount of stock. I joined a startup in 1999. There were 3 founders and I was employee #2 after that. I received a ton of options (this was before RSUs became popular). We had a great product and a great team, but 18 months later ran out of money and unfortunately it was right after…

I actually lost money when the first company I worked for sold.

At settle, I received a wire transfer for $7.22. The bank charged me a $15 incoming wire transfer fee.

Re: There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

#254

What is the main reason though? The BigCo being too risk averse? Or employees having too much of a safety net? Or BigCo processes weighing the team down? A combination of these?

It's ownership that's the problem. A would-be entrepreneur can't negotiate a 50% stake with executive rights in a bigco.

Re: There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

#255
post #77

When I was at PowerBI in Microsoft, all the execs hailed it as Startup within Microsoft. Come work here instead of Uber. I worked like a dog, sometimes till 2am in morning. My manager would routinely ask us to come on weekends. I was naive, I thought we are growing customer base, this is what a startup looks like. The ultimate realization was in a startup you have equity, a decent amount in a good startup. At Microso…

>The ultimate realization was in a startup you have equity, a decent amount in a good startup. At Microsoft it was a base salary and set amount of stock. I joined a startup in 1999. There were 3 founders and I was employee #2 after that. I received a ton of options (this was before RSUs became popular). We had a great product and a great team, but 18 months later ran out of money and unfortunately it was right after…

I agree with your overall premise, but I think you and the parent are talking about fundamentally different things.

If I'm at a startup and I'm constantly working 14 hour days, I want equity. Because I am not going to work 14 hour days (or even 10 hour days) for just a normal base salary. I mean, sure, I wouldn't mind instead taking 4x a normal base salary to work those 14 hour days, but no company (startup or established business) is going to give you that deal. That equity may end up being worth nothing over the long term, but by joining an early startup, I am betting on a solid founding team and the product, and the team's ability to execute. And because it's a small team, I'm betting that I personally can be a big component in whether or not the company succeeds or fails. (Often it'll succeed or fail despite what I do, but that's not the point.)

We can debate the wisdom (with regard to productivity and health outcomes) of working habitual 14 hour days at all in the first place, but the bottom line is that if I'm going to be pouring so much of my life into something, I at least want the possibility (even if the probability is low) of a life-changing financial outcome. It's pretty rare that you're going to get that with a base salary, even at a larger, well-established, public company that has decently high growth.

And I get it, some people just don't want to make the base vs. illiquid-equity trade off. An early-stage startup is probably not for those people anyway, and there's nothing wrong with that. I did it three times: one was a complete flop (after I'd paid to exercise options that became worthless shares), one was a mediocre flop (got out of there in under a year, knew they were incapable of shipping, turned out I was right), and one was more successful than I ever expected. And yet I'm happy I joined all three, even the first one.

> Outside of FAANG (and top executives at F500 sized public companies) very few people are getting rich off of the "equity" component of their TC.

Not even at* FAANG. A new hire (today) at one of those companies is not going to get a life-changing equity grant. A hire from back when they were relatively new companies (or, as with Apple, down in the dumps circa 2000) can get that. But, a hire at that point will be expected to work more (often much more) than a normal 8-hour day.

I think people forget that a mulit-millionaire Googler who has been there since 2003 and is still there now is likely mainly rich because of the equity they got in the first 3 or 4 years. As companies mature, their equity comp declines rapidly. If that same person had joined Google 5 or 7 or even 10 years ago as an individual contributor, their equity comp would not make them rich; they're now getting most of their wealth from base salary.

> The vast majority of startups go bust before IPO or acquisition.

Right. And that's why you shouldn't join a startup because you expect to get rich. You should join because you like that style of work better than large-corporation life. But if they're going to expect you to pour your life into that startup, you should get a big chunk of equity that can -- if things work out -- compensate you for those long hours someday.

Re: There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

#256
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The ultimate realization was in a startup you have equity, a decent amount in a good startup. At Microsoft it was a base salary and set amount of stock. I joined a startup in 1999. There were 3 founders and I was employee #2 after that. I received a ton of options (this was before RSUs became popular). We had a great product and a great team, but 18 months later ran out of money and unfortunately it was right after…

The thing most people forget about options & RSU is that one is taking away a big chunk of the TC and delay it to a future year. Even when you hate your job, you will be hesitant to leave the company because of FOMO and sunk cost fallacy That said, anecdotally, every one of my close circle of friends made decent amount money from equity (one of the many companies they worked at did very well) - far higher than the 10…

I don't think that tracks with reality. If my company suddenly decided to do away with equity comp, they would not replace all the potential earnings with base salary. Base salary would be higher, sure, but still much lower than the salary+equity package.

I think more companies now have a policy where your RSUs vest every quarter, and there's no cliff (except for possibly the first new-hire grant[0]). So yes, it's delayed, but in practical terms you get your first vest within 3 months of getting the grant. (And if your company doesn't do refresh grants periodically, and equity is important to you, you should find another company.)

> Even when you hate your job, you will be hesitant to leave the company because of FOMO and sunk cost fallacy

This is unfortunately true. I do know people who aren't happy in their job (maybe not to the point of actively hating it), but stick around because of their golden handcuffs. I tend not to worry about that too much; they've decided[1] that being unhappy is worth the cash, and it's not a bad problem to have to be able to make that choice.

> That said, anecdotally, every one of my close circle of friends made decent amount money from equity

Exactly.

[0] Which I have a hard time complaining against. The company probably just spent $50k of its own resources to hire you, and I don't mind that they don't want to give you any equity until you've been there for a year.

[1] Then again, negotiation may be able to get similar equity terms at a new company that could presumably make them happy, and I think many people discount that fact.

Re: There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

#257
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing most people forget about options & RSU is that one is taking away a big chunk of the TC and delay it to a future year. Even when you hate your job, you will be hesitant to leave the company because of FOMO and sunk cost fallacy That said, anecdotally, every one of my close circle of friends made decent amount money from equity (one of the many companies they worked at did very well) - far higher than the 10…

> The thing most people forget about options & RSU is that one is taking away a big chunk of the TC and delay it to a future year. That's not my experience. My TC is the amount I'll actually make this year (and have made in previous years), which includes my salary, bonus, and the value of the RSUs at vesting, which I auto-sell. I'm not "delaying" anything; I'm making great money right now . Unvested shares only matt…

The comment you're replying to is talking about RSU's in startups (illiquid) not public companies.

Re: There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

#258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“except that I knew that I didn't get to keep any upside. L Same at my company. They have similar programs but you also don’t get any stake in the outcome and are still controlled by executives who in the end get the credit. Same for hackathons they tried to organize. The idea quickly turned from fun projects basically into overtime to check off Jura tickets quickly but with the addition of free pizza. I think leader…

Pretty much all company hackathons are just tech debt day At startups and big companies

If they were honest and called it a "beat down tech debt day" I would probably be keen for that. I am easily swayed by free pizza, and I love cleaning up hard to understand/bug prone code.

Re: There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have payouts proportional to success even in big companies. Google famously payed $120M to Anthony Levandowski. This is because there was an agreement in place to pay projects in X based on the value that they create.

True, but this is a vanishingly small edge case. You generally have to be a certain person to negotiate something like this with a big company. Surely the "Ninth Cog Engineer From The Left" at Waymo will not have the negotiating power to get this kind of profit-sharing or pay-for-value comp package.

I think the same deal applied to all projects at X at the time. The other projects were just not all successful.

Re: There’s no such thing as “a startup within a big company”

#260
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very cherry-picked. Actually research has found that prior business success does not predict future success at all. Though failure does predict failure, so at least avoid that.

How is it mathematically possible for prior failure to predict failure, without prior success predicting success?

I suppose it could be that if you had a prior success, your chance of future success is the same as if it was your first attempt.
Post reply on HN