4 ms·

Agree. In Germany, some Mittelstand companies do offer employee stock options which allow you to buy a certain quota of stocks per month at a pre-negotiated pri

Agree. In Germany, some Mittelstand companies do offer employee stock options which allow you to buy a certain quota of stocks per month at a pre-negotiated price which is typically much lower than market value. The idea is that over time, employees can choose to reinvest their salary into the company, thereby becoming partial owners.

bruce511 4y ago
Personally I do not think employees should pay money to invest in the company where they work. Because if they do, then if the company goes bust they lose their job and their savings on the same day. See Enron as an example where employees were heavily invested in Enron. And the company doesn't even need to go bust - a downturn in the stock price leads to some cutbacks and redundancies, and you're the unlucky one... The first rule of investment is diversification, and keeping your salary separate to your savings seems like a good start. By all means buy options, and sell for a quick bonus, then take the money elsewhere. If you can't sell the stock (company not yet IPO) then treat money spent on options as "lost"... In 99% of cases it will be.
- fxtentacle 4y ago
  I believe you're seeing things through a US lens there. Many of these small Mittelstand companies are incredibly durable because they don't have high loans and they don't have investors. Also, the idea here is not that it's a great investment (although it usually is), but that it transfers power to experienced employees. Imagine if you and your coworkers owned enough company shares so that you could veto the CEO together.
  - bruce511 4y ago
    Sure, if employees owned more than 50% of the company then they'd have more "seats at the table". In my experience the employee poll is negligible though from a "power" point of view. My point I guess is that there's no materially different upside to owning shares where you work, or just shares outside. And shares outside diversify your income stream. If there is a material difference in terms of power, well then I guess that's different.

bruce511 4y ago

Personally I do not think employees should pay money to invest in the company where they work. Because if they do, then if the company goes bust they lose their job and their savings on the same day. See Enron as an example where employees were heavily invested in Enron. And the company doesn't even need to go bust - a downturn in the stock price leads to some cutbacks and redundancies, and you're the unlucky one... The first rule of investment is diversification, and keeping your salary separate to your savings seems like a good start. By all means buy options, and sell for a quick bonus, then take the money elsewhere. If you can't sell the stock (company not yet IPO) then treat money spent on options as "lost"... In 99% of cases it will be.

fxtentacle 4y ago
I believe you're seeing things through a US lens there. Many of these small Mittelstand companies are incredibly durable because they don't have high loans and they don't have investors. Also, the idea here is not that it's a great investment (although it usually is), but that it transfers power to experienced employees. Imagine if you and your coworkers owned enough company shares so that you could veto the CEO together.
- bruce511 4y ago
  Sure, if employees owned more than 50% of the company then they'd have more "seats at the table". In my experience the employee poll is negligible though from a "power" point of view. My point I guess is that there's no materially different upside to owning shares where you work, or just shares outside. And shares outside diversify your income stream. If there is a material difference in terms of power, well then I guess that's different.