4 ms·
It's like anti-profit sharing. The employees own part of the company, but only for acquisitions and not for profits.
by smackfu 15y ago
It's like anti-profit sharing. The employees own part of the company, but only for acquisitions and not for profits.
- seiji 15y agoThey already have profit sharing though (it's where the million dollar cars come from).
- roel_v 15y agoUh? Regular employees of a company with million-dollar cars? Quite incredible claim. Even Google pays what, half a million or so to top engineers from what I read left and right? You don't drive million dollar cars on a salary (any salary).
- borism 15y agowhat car costs million dollars anyway? Lamborghini Gallardo is "only" quarter of a mil... And Veyron is way above (couple of) million.
- true_religion 15y agoBase price of a Veyron is 1.7 million dollars. Lamborghini Murcielago, 2010, premiered at $400,000 to $600,000. However, when people are talking about a million dollar car they're most likely remembering the McLaren F1 which sold for $970,000 back in 1998.
- qq66 15y agoI wouldn't call him a "regular employee" but incredible claim or not, DHH definitely did purchase a million dollar car recently.
- roel_v 15y agoSo I googled 'dhh car' and it turns out he is the owner of some company, hardly a 'regular employee'.
- tptacek 15y agoThis is like an anti-comment. No part of it makes sense. The employees do not own part of the company. They're promised a bonus in the (unlikely) instance of a major liquidity event. Granting them that bonus in no way injures any other element of their comp. This is so much the case that Fried says most of his employees have probably forgotten they even have this bonus. That's not what you say when you're using a comp scheme as leverage with your employees. You have no idea what 37signals people make, how profit sharing and incentive comp work, or why people choose to work there. But you feel just fine snarking about them because they don't fit into the "first engineering hire gets 5%" shoot-the-moon mold we normally talk about on HN.
- smackfu 15y agoDude. You totally misunderstood my comment. An actual ownership stake means you share in both profits and acquisitions. A typical employee profit sharing means the employees shares in profits but not in an acquisition unless they also get stock options. In the scheme described, the employees share in acquisitions but not profit. So it is the anti-profit sharing. Anti- not meaning bad. Anti- meaning opposite. Maybe not the deepest thing in the world, but geez, you took it a bit too seriously.
- tptacek 15y agoOptions or restricted shares --- or even the common stock of publicly traded companies --- do not automatically entitle the owners to a share of the profits. Profit sharing and equity are orthogonal issues.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]