5 ms·

According to the S-1, the founders still own ~75% and the other directors/officers own another 10%. Wow.

by caseysoftware 11y ago

pbreit 11y ago
Seems like employees should own a lot more. Too bad for them.
- jlangenauer 11y ago
  Perhaps, but I know some Atlasssian employees who were there reasonably early, and - let me put it this way - they're not exactly unhappy at the moment.
  - modarts 11y ago
    http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/crying-money-woody-harrelson-zombieland.gif http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/crying-mon...
- illumen 11y ago
  Seems like Australia should own a lot more. They founded the company there, took advantage of the country, and then made an exit elsewhere.
  - morgante 11y ago
    Why do you think the Australian government should be entitled to ownership of all startups founded there? By most counts, they just make it difficult and annoying for tech companies. Atlassian has paid millions in taxes, why should they owe more?
    - illumen 11y ago
      They should pay tax at the rate set by law. Do they have a moral or ethical obligation to support the society that gave them life? Should the Australian government have supported them more than say the coal or car industry? Hell yes. This is a massive blunder on the part of the Australian government. One that has been repeated for decades. Could Australia be in the position to provide as much capital as Atlassian is raising now? Yes! There is a LOT of money flowing around Australia. Just a small percentage of Super (compulsory pension funds) could have been invested. Even R&D tax breaks could have given more. However, VC invested by Australian funds is tiny (less than 1 billion/year). The fact is Atlassian left Australia to avoid paying tax. They have even admitted it many times. The Australian government should have done more to keep them there. Maybe Atlassian leaving will actually do more good in the long term, because more people will see the missed opportunities. (not holding my breath on that one).
      - jamesk_au 11y ago
        To be clear, Atlassian didn't leave Australia to avoid paying income tax, or even to avoid paying any tax. The principal reasons they left were that the Australian market doesn't have the ability to price a tech IPO of their size and to increase attractiveness to foreign investors.[1][2] Atlassian's approach to taxation is an exemplar of one of their core company values: "Be the change you seek". They voluntarily paid millions of dollars to their employees to reimburse them for the tax that their employees were obliged to pay on their employee share options under Australian law. Until very recently, Australian law required that employees who receive share options pay tax on the value of the shares at the time the share options are issued (before the options are even exercised by the employee). The application of the law to startups was widely criticised (including by Scott Farquhar) for obvious reasons. Here's Scott Farquhar's description of how they chose to deal with that: "Atlassian believes that share options are so important to attracting and retaining talent that it has covered the cost of the tax for its employees, said Farquhar. He estimated that this has so far cost the company a total of $5.4 million."[3] Fortunately, the current Australian government introduced tax breaks for startups using employee share schemes earlier this year.[4] I have no affiliation with Atlassian other than as an Aussie who is proud of their accomplishments. [1] http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2013/2013fca1451 http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca... (see paragraph [25]) [2] http://www.techworld.com.au/article/535906/what_atlassian_move_says_about_australia_startup_scene/ http://www.techworld.com.au/article/535906/what_atlassian_mo... [2] http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/557248/atlassian-ceo-gets-why-startups-want-leave-australia/ http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/557248/atlassian-ceo... [4] https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Employee-share-schemes/In-detail/Key-ESS-changes-in-detail/ https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Employee-share-schemes/In-det...
  - stock_toaster 11y ago
    I tend to think Atlassian succeeded in spite of Australia, not because of it.
    - illumen 11y ago
      The harsh circumstances probably meant they had to have a better product to survive. Higher employee costs, and a time zone 12 hours different means you HAVE to work/manage more efficiently.
- tajen 11y ago
  During the previous round (see CrunchBase), Scott Farquhar said some employees will be able to buy a little home with the shares they have. I'm not sure employees who joined in the last years (when it became bigger than 500 people) should get equity at all, but I don't know how this opinion compares with the rest of the industry.
  - randycupertino 11y ago
    A home where? Probably not in SF or the Bay Area with those #s. Maybe in Seattle.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Well, their HQ is in Sydney, Australia, so I don't see why they would be referring to the Bay Area.
      - randycupertino 11y ago
        I live in SF and a bunch of my friends work for Atlassian. They have a SF office with a lot of people in it: https://www.atlassian.com/company/careers/all-jobs?location=San%20Francisco https://www.atlassian.com/company/careers/all-jobs?location=...
  - ryanackley 11y ago
    Former employee here. The previous "round" was a private sale of stock from current and former employees to T. Rowe Price. No money went to the company but we got to sell a third of our shares. Scott was probably talking about proceeds from that third. Trust me when I say it's gonna be a huge life-changing windfall for most employees I know from my time there (I left in 2013).
- masklinn 11y ago
  Keep in mind, Atlassian is not a young startup, it was founded in 2002 and has more than 1100 employees.
  - jryan49 11y ago
    I would argue at this point it's a real business...
  - pbreit 11y ago
    That's why it's particularly surprising that the employees have such a small percentage. It's understandable in the beginning.
    - adenadel 11y ago
      I think the employees will probably be happy. The current market cap is above 5.5B. The 15% that is employee owned comes out to 825M. With 1100 employees, this comes out to an average of 750K per employee. Obviously this won't be distributed evenly, but definitely life-changer for many employees.

According to the S-1, the founders still own ~75% and the other directors/officers own another 10%. Wow.

pbreit 11y ago

Seems like employees should own a lot more. Too bad for them.

jlangenauer 11y ago
Perhaps, but I know some Atlasssian employees who were there reasonably early, and - let me put it this way - they're not exactly unhappy at the moment.
- modarts 11y ago
  http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/crying-money-woody-harrelson-zombieland.gif http://reactiongifs.me/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/crying-mon...
illumen 11y ago
Seems like Australia should own a lot more. They founded the company there, took advantage of the country, and then made an exit elsewhere.
- morgante 11y ago
  Why do you think the Australian government should be entitled to ownership of all startups founded there? By most counts, they just make it difficult and annoying for tech companies. Atlassian has paid millions in taxes, why should they owe more?
  - illumen 11y ago
    They should pay tax at the rate set by law. Do they have a moral or ethical obligation to support the society that gave them life? Should the Australian government have supported them more than say the coal or car industry? Hell yes. This is a massive blunder on the part of the Australian government. One that has been repeated for decades. Could Australia be in the position to provide as much capital as Atlassian is raising now? Yes! There is a LOT of money flowing around Australia. Just a small percentage of Super (compulsory pension funds) could have been invested. Even R&D tax breaks could have given more. However, VC invested by Australian funds is tiny (less than 1 billion/year). The fact is Atlassian left Australia to avoid paying tax. They have even admitted it many times. The Australian government should have done more to keep them there. Maybe Atlassian leaving will actually do more good in the long term, because more people will see the missed opportunities. (not holding my breath on that one).
    - jamesk_au 11y ago
      To be clear, Atlassian didn't leave Australia to avoid paying income tax, or even to avoid paying any tax. The principal reasons they left were that the Australian market doesn't have the ability to price a tech IPO of their size and to increase attractiveness to foreign investors.[1][2] Atlassian's approach to taxation is an exemplar of one of their core company values: "Be the change you seek". They voluntarily paid millions of dollars to their employees to reimburse them for the tax that their employees were obliged to pay on their employee share options under Australian law. Until very recently, Australian law required that employees who receive share options pay tax on the value of the shares at the time the share options are issued (before the options are even exercised by the employee). The application of the law to startups was widely criticised (including by Scott Farquhar) for obvious reasons. Here's Scott Farquhar's description of how they chose to deal with that: "Atlassian believes that share options are so important to attracting and retaining talent that it has covered the cost of the tax for its employees, said Farquhar. He estimated that this has so far cost the company a total of $5.4 million."[3] Fortunately, the current Australian government introduced tax breaks for startups using employee share schemes earlier this year.[4] I have no affiliation with Atlassian other than as an Aussie who is proud of their accomplishments. [1] http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2013/2013fca1451 http://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca... (see paragraph [25]) [2] http://www.techworld.com.au/article/535906/what_atlassian_move_says_about_australia_startup_scene/ http://www.techworld.com.au/article/535906/what_atlassian_mo... [2] http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/557248/atlassian-ceo-gets-why-startups-want-leave-australia/ http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/557248/atlassian-ceo... [4] https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Employee-share-schemes/In-detail/Key-ESS-changes-in-detail/ https://www.ato.gov.au/General/Employee-share-schemes/In-det...
- stock_toaster 11y ago
  I tend to think Atlassian succeeded in spite of Australia, not because of it.
  - illumen 11y ago
    The harsh circumstances probably meant they had to have a better product to survive. Higher employee costs, and a time zone 12 hours different means you HAVE to work/manage more efficiently.
tajen 11y ago
During the previous round (see CrunchBase), Scott Farquhar said some employees will be able to buy a little home with the shares they have. I'm not sure employees who joined in the last years (when it became bigger than 500 people) should get equity at all, but I don't know how this opinion compares with the rest of the industry.
- randycupertino 11y ago
  A home where? Probably not in SF or the Bay Area with those #s. Maybe in Seattle.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Well, their HQ is in Sydney, Australia, so I don't see why they would be referring to the Bay Area.
    - randycupertino 11y ago
      I live in SF and a bunch of my friends work for Atlassian. They have a SF office with a lot of people in it: https://www.atlassian.com/company/careers/all-jobs?location=San%20Francisco https://www.atlassian.com/company/careers/all-jobs?location=...
- ryanackley 11y ago
  Former employee here. The previous "round" was a private sale of stock from current and former employees to T. Rowe Price. No money went to the company but we got to sell a third of our shares. Scott was probably talking about proceeds from that third. Trust me when I say it's gonna be a huge life-changing windfall for most employees I know from my time there (I left in 2013).
masklinn 11y ago
Keep in mind, Atlassian is not a young startup, it was founded in 2002 and has more than 1100 employees.
- jryan49 11y ago
  I would argue at this point it's a real business...
- pbreit 11y ago
  That's why it's particularly surprising that the employees have such a small percentage. It's understandable in the beginning.
  - adenadel 11y ago
    I think the employees will probably be happy. The current market cap is above 5.5B. The 15% that is employee owned comes out to 825M. With 1100 employees, this comes out to an average of 750K per employee. Obviously this won't be distributed evenly, but definitely life-changer for many employees.