4 ms·

Actually (and please correct my arithmetic wherever it's wrong), the prospectus shows 96.1% to founders, directors, officers, and VCs (page 146). At $5.8B, the

by kzhahou 11y ago

Actually (and please correct my arithmetic wherever it's wrong), the prospectus shows 96.1% to founders, directors, officers, and VCs (page 146). At $5.8B, the founders stake is $2.1 billion each, and the 1300 employees share $226 million. It's good to be a founder!

nickonline 11y ago
That's $200k per employee if they sold today, they were already getting paid well. A nice payout for sure.
- kzhahou 11y ago
  Sure, in absolute numbers, $200k is great. Relative to a multibillion liquidity event, and in particular where founders kept so much, it's a shit deal. Two guys have 18x all their employees combined. Oh well, the employees were bad negotiators who sold themselves short. But they created two billionaires and had fun and a working salary along the way! :-) At any rate, this always bothers me because even though we do what we do because we love technology and helping people, and it's not all about making money, I believe that everyone should reap the rewards in a measure equal to their contribution. Very few people realize how much the cap table favor founders and investors. People happily say "I'm not here to get rich, but if this works then we'll all make money together." That's great, but the reality is that if it succeeds, still a handful of people will rise to become amongst the richest on the planet, while the rest get a very nice (sometimes awesome) payout, but still a tiny fraction of the first one or two. Employees: you were never in it together. You were working to mint a billionaire.
  - meric 11y ago
    Atlassian was founded in 2002. An experienced developer, with a salary of A$140000 per year in 2015 dollars, who've worked there since 2005 for 10 years, will have received A$1.4m in 2015 dollars in salary. Add the $200k payout and it adds up to A$1.6m. Atlassian is valued at A$8b, that is roughly $8m per employee. Collecting only A$1.6m out of A$8m total value per employee isn't spectacular, but it isn't as bad as the nominal $200k payout makes it out to be. If you were working on a full time basis, you never had to fund the business on your credit card, and even if Atlassian went bankrupt the day before the IPO and plunged to $0 in value, you still got to keep A$1.4m of the A$1.6m. You got to become a millionaire if you saved and invested well, while minting a billionaire. Sure, it's not a good a deal as being a founder of a IPO'ed billion dollar startup, it's not exactly a bad deal either.
    - Domenic_S 11y ago
      If you're counting the employee's salaries, be sure to count the founders' as well.
      - meric 11y ago
        In Atlassian's case the salaries of founders probably add up to around $3m, which is insignificant next to the $4+b value of their shares. Also, high salaries for founders is an issue only when the founders did not fund their own business. You're right, in a startup, funded by VC, that pays the founders significantly more salary than their employees, is a lot less equitable compared to a bootstrapped startup funded by the founders' credit cards, or a VC funded startup that pays its founders little. In the latter cases, the founders take a lot more risk, and so their reward, should their startup succeed, would be a lot more "deserved".
benjaminRRR 11y ago
Australia makes it incredibly difficult to give equity to your employees - they literally get double punished and it's often better for the employee not receive. The Australian Taxation Office will charge on receipt. So you get 1% of the company and it's last investment round was $10M - Boom you get a $100,000 tax bill that year! Even though it's all only paper value. Then if you do liquidate you're taxed again on the gain! It's a huge problem and there are a lot of folks in the startup community trying to get it rectified.
- anilgulecha 11y ago
  Isn't options the default rather than a grant? The tax should only apply on exercising/liquidation.
- 1stop 11y ago
  That's not true. The company gets 10M. The shareholder still received nothing, and thus has no tax liability. When the shareholder sells their shares they will be taxed. I don't understand your scenario at all... :\
  - tim333 11y ago
    His scenario was the company raises at 10M and afterwards gives 1% of it's shares to the employee. Actually I think most countries would treat that as taxable income which is why companies usually give options not shares once they get going.
    - 1stop 11y ago
      That is still not a taxable event. Even if it's shares and not options. The shares won't be taxed until they are sold. I know this, because I've worked in an Australian company and been given shares and they made no difference to my tax liability.

by kzhahou 11y ago

nickonline 11y ago

That's $200k per employee if they sold today, they were already getting paid well. A nice payout for sure.

kzhahou 11y ago
Sure, in absolute numbers, $200k is great. Relative to a multibillion liquidity event, and in particular where founders kept so much, it's a shit deal. Two guys have 18x all their employees combined. Oh well, the employees were bad negotiators who sold themselves short. But they created two billionaires and had fun and a working salary along the way! :-) At any rate, this always bothers me because even though we do what we do because we love technology and helping people, and it's not all about making money, I believe that everyone should reap the rewards in a measure equal to their contribution. Very few people realize how much the cap table favor founders and investors. People happily say "I'm not here to get rich, but if this works then we'll all make money together." That's great, but the reality is that if it succeeds, still a handful of people will rise to become amongst the richest on the planet, while the rest get a very nice (sometimes awesome) payout, but still a tiny fraction of the first one or two. Employees: you were never in it together. You were working to mint a billionaire.
- meric 11y ago
  Atlassian was founded in 2002. An experienced developer, with a salary of A$140000 per year in 2015 dollars, who've worked there since 2005 for 10 years, will have received A$1.4m in 2015 dollars in salary. Add the $200k payout and it adds up to A$1.6m. Atlassian is valued at A$8b, that is roughly $8m per employee. Collecting only A$1.6m out of A$8m total value per employee isn't spectacular, but it isn't as bad as the nominal $200k payout makes it out to be. If you were working on a full time basis, you never had to fund the business on your credit card, and even if Atlassian went bankrupt the day before the IPO and plunged to $0 in value, you still got to keep A$1.4m of the A$1.6m. You got to become a millionaire if you saved and invested well, while minting a billionaire. Sure, it's not a good a deal as being a founder of a IPO'ed billion dollar startup, it's not exactly a bad deal either.
  - Domenic_S 11y ago
    If you're counting the employee's salaries, be sure to count the founders' as well.
    - meric 11y ago
      In Atlassian's case the salaries of founders probably add up to around $3m, which is insignificant next to the $4+b value of their shares. Also, high salaries for founders is an issue only when the founders did not fund their own business. You're right, in a startup, funded by VC, that pays the founders significantly more salary than their employees, is a lot less equitable compared to a bootstrapped startup funded by the founders' credit cards, or a VC funded startup that pays its founders little. In the latter cases, the founders take a lot more risk, and so their reward, should their startup succeed, would be a lot more "deserved".

benjaminRRR 11y ago

Australia makes it incredibly difficult to give equity to your employees - they literally get double punished and it's often better for the employee not receive. The Australian Taxation Office will charge on receipt. So you get 1% of the company and it's last investment round was $10M - Boom you get a $100,000 tax bill that year! Even though it's all only paper value. Then if you do liquidate you're taxed again on the gain! It's a huge problem and there are a lot of folks in the startup community trying to get it rectified.

anilgulecha 11y ago
Isn't options the default rather than a grant? The tax should only apply on exercising/liquidation.
1stop 11y ago
That's not true. The company gets 10M. The shareholder still received nothing, and thus has no tax liability. When the shareholder sells their shares they will be taxed. I don't understand your scenario at all... :\
- tim333 11y ago
  His scenario was the company raises at 10M and afterwards gives 1% of it's shares to the employee. Actually I think most countries would treat that as taxable income which is why companies usually give options not shares once they get going.
  - 1stop 11y ago
    That is still not a taxable event. Even if it's shares and not options. The shares won't be taxed until they are sold. I know this, because I've worked in an Australian company and been given shares and they made no difference to my tax liability.