8 ms·

I don't even see what the issue is here. He started the company, built it up to be a large, successful firm, and is the main reason why they now have so many lo

I don't even see what the issue is here. He started the company, built it up to be a large, successful firm, and is the main reason why they now have so many long-term, institutional clients. He's supposed to just give this away to the workers? He's well within his rights to do basically whatever he wants! Most big hedge funds actually close up shop and become family offices to the founder when the founder decides to slow down (e.g, Stan Druckenmiller, Soros, Icahn, etc.), which is way worse for employees. He could do that, or he could sell the firm, or take it public, or anything else that his voting shares legally allow him to do. Selling the firm to the top employees, and offering them generous "seller financing" terms to do so over 10 years, actually seems like a good deal for them, and has the added benefit of clearly determining who actually believes in the company and its prospects over the long term. These are not regular "rank and file" employees, anyway-- the average net worth of these people is probably at least $30mm. If I allow myself to be cynical, what this really sounds like to me was an attempt to use his regrettable comments (about China acting like a "strict parent" towards dissenters) as a bludgeon to extort him into giving away an extremely valuable asset to his top executives--who were basically betraying him by trying to force him out in the first place. If I were in his place, I would terminate all of those executives and promote younger, more loyal workers to replace them, and then sell the company to them after they prove themselves for a few years.

dereg 4y ago
There is no issue here. This is simply a story of the transfer of ownership between a company's founder to employees. The framing is incredibly weird, I hate it. The article could simply be rewritten as (not GPT3): - Ray started to sell the ownership of Bridgewater in the mid 2010s, but retained a controlling interest in the company. - He financed the buyout of his shares, providing liquidity to employees. - There were struggles finding leadership that could competently carrying the fund forward. - Current leadership has a vision of how the fund should operate going forward, and that vision conflicts with some of Ray's stated principles. - As a result, leadership wants to buy him out entirely, but probably do not have the funds to do so. As a result, Ray is converting his ownership into non-voting preferred stock, conferring him dividend until the sooner of Bridgewater or Dalio's death. All I can say is finally. The early stories of Bridgewater (pre 250 employees) from former employees with whom I have talked make Bridgewater seem like a truly special place to have worked at. Ray facilitated meetings across the org in a very personal, constructive way. Then AUM ballooned and they went to 2,000+ employees in a snap. Then they brought in consultants like IBM to scale their intimate management style and the last vestige of magic dissolved. The fund was a zombie asset aggregator for a good 5-7 years. We'll see how it goes going forward.
helsinkiandrew 4y ago
> I don't even see what the issue is here... He's supposed to just give this away to the workers? I think the issue (poorly put in the article) is that the founders shares he has still gave him control, whilst the company was ‘owned’ by others, forcing them to do a secret deal giving him better returns than other shareholders. Surely the workers and board should be loyal to the current shareholders and investors rather than the guy who started and ran the company previously (however successfully)
- smallnamespace 4y ago
  > board should be loyal to the shareholders In what sense? Having voting control means he gets to pick the (majority of) the board.
  - helsinkiandrew 4y ago
    Technically the board is responsible for all shareholders but his extra voting rights means he can force it to give him preferential treatment. The reason the deal was secret is probably to try to stop any shareholder lawsuits. > The board has a fiduciary duty with respect to the shareholders; that is, the board has financial and other responsibilities to keep the corporation running efficiently so the shareholders don't lose money." https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/advocacy/issues/board-responsibilities https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/advocacy/issues/board-respon...
lmm 4y ago
> He started the company, built it up to be a large, successful firm, and is the main reason why they now have so many long-term, institutional clients. Maybe. Or maybe hard-working employees are the main reason for that success, and the figurehead at the top was just in the right place at the right time. > He could do that, or he could sell the firm, or take it public, or anything else that his voting shares legally allow him to do. In most developed economies a company owner cannot arbitrarily destroy their employees' careers. You have a responsibility to the people who've devoted a substantial chunk of their lives to you. > Selling the firm to the top employees, and offering them generous "seller financing" terms to do so over 10 years, actually seems like a good deal for them, and has the added benefit of clearly determining who actually believes in the company and its prospects over the long term. If you can't see how it's inherently inappropriate for a superior to pressure a subordinate to take on a large personal debt to buy an asset of questionable value from that superior, with the implication that their continued employment depends on this, then I don't know what to tell you. What's next, expecting them to "volunteer" to work unpaid hours to prove their commitment to the company?
- theteapot 4y ago
  > In most developed economies a company owner cannot arbitrarily destroy their employees' careers. You have a responsibility to the people who've devoted a substantial chunk of their lives to you. Bahaha. Hilarious.
  - jquery 4y ago
    Hilarious how?
- oh_sigh 4y ago
  Those employees were silly for not just starting their own firm if they were the main cause of success.
- eigenvalue 4y ago
  Again, these aren't poor downtrodden factory workers toiling away in the mines... these are unbelievably well compensated non-founders who have made far more than even the founders of most successful startups, all without taking true entrepreneurial risks. They are already rich beyond measure, and yet their greed is so extreme that they think they are entitled to extort the founder's shares at some knock-down price because of "reasons"-- to the point where they cry about it to the NYT in violation of their NDAs. Also, you are quite mistaken about the legal duty owed to employees in any capitalist society. You absolutely can wind down a firm, especially if you give sufficient notice in advance to employees (i.e., "we will shut down in 1.5 years from today").
ano88888 4y ago
Once upon a time, nytimes was a trustworthy and reliable news source. Now it is full of out of portion hatred towards tech and wealthy people.
- koolba 4y ago
  If you read a wider range of articles, you’ll see that they hate plenty of luddite and poor people too.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
rvba 4y ago
What is "$30mm"? Is it 30 million dollars? Why do people use "mm"?
- naikrovek 4y ago
  30 million. don't know why, but it's probably to do with "m" already being used elsewhere, or something.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - galangalalgol 4y ago
    M is 1000 in Roman numerals, that is the origin in accounting. It should be upper case though.
- everydayentropy 4y ago
  I think it's meant to be Roman numeral abbreviation for a thousand-thousand. You would think MM would be two thousand following the convention, but it's multiplicative like 10^6.
- pmichaud 4y ago
  In finance they use it because "M" is the roman numeral for 1000. MM is 1000*1000.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  m means mille, Latin for thousand. mille mille is therefore 1 million. It's used in other business contexts too. If you've ever paid for online ads, you'll know that CPM means cost per mille, the price of 1000 ad impressions.

dereg 4y ago

There is no issue here. This is simply a story of the transfer of ownership between a company's founder to employees. The framing is incredibly weird, I hate it. The article could simply be rewritten as (not GPT3): - Ray started to sell the ownership of Bridgewater in the mid 2010s, but retained a controlling interest in the company. - He financed the buyout of his shares, providing liquidity to employees. - There were struggles finding leadership that could competently carrying the fund forward. - Current leadership has a vision of how the fund should operate going forward, and that vision conflicts with some of Ray's stated principles. - As a result, leadership wants to buy him out entirely, but probably do not have the funds to do so. As a result, Ray is converting his ownership into non-voting preferred stock, conferring him dividend until the sooner of Bridgewater or Dalio's death. All I can say is finally. The early stories of Bridgewater (pre 250 employees) from former employees with whom I have talked make Bridgewater seem like a truly special place to have worked at. Ray facilitated meetings across the org in a very personal, constructive way. Then AUM ballooned and they went to 2,000+ employees in a snap. Then they brought in consultants like IBM to scale their intimate management style and the last vestige of magic dissolved. The fund was a zombie asset aggregator for a good 5-7 years. We'll see how it goes going forward.

helsinkiandrew 4y ago

> I don't even see what the issue is here... He's supposed to just give this away to the workers? I think the issue (poorly put in the article) is that the founders shares he has still gave him control, whilst the company was ‘owned’ by others, forcing them to do a secret deal giving him better returns than other shareholders. Surely the workers and board should be loyal to the current shareholders and investors rather than the guy who started and ran the company previously (however successfully)

smallnamespace 4y ago
> board should be loyal to the shareholders In what sense? Having voting control means he gets to pick the (majority of) the board.
- helsinkiandrew 4y ago
  Technically the board is responsible for all shareholders but his extra voting rights means he can force it to give him preferential treatment. The reason the deal was secret is probably to try to stop any shareholder lawsuits. > The board has a fiduciary duty with respect to the shareholders; that is, the board has financial and other responsibilities to keep the corporation running efficiently so the shareholders don't lose money." https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/advocacy/issues/board-responsibilities https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/advocacy/issues/board-respon...

lmm 4y ago

> He started the company, built it up to be a large, successful firm, and is the main reason why they now have so many long-term, institutional clients. Maybe. Or maybe hard-working employees are the main reason for that success, and the figurehead at the top was just in the right place at the right time. > He could do that, or he could sell the firm, or take it public, or anything else that his voting shares legally allow him to do. In most developed economies a company owner cannot arbitrarily destroy their employees' careers. You have a responsibility to the people who've devoted a substantial chunk of their lives to you. > Selling the firm to the top employees, and offering them generous "seller financing" terms to do so over 10 years, actually seems like a good deal for them, and has the added benefit of clearly determining who actually believes in the company and its prospects over the long term. If you can't see how it's inherently inappropriate for a superior to pressure a subordinate to take on a large personal debt to buy an asset of questionable value from that superior, with the implication that their continued employment depends on this, then I don't know what to tell you. What's next, expecting them to "volunteer" to work unpaid hours to prove their commitment to the company?

theteapot 4y ago
> In most developed economies a company owner cannot arbitrarily destroy their employees' careers. You have a responsibility to the people who've devoted a substantial chunk of their lives to you. Bahaha. Hilarious.
- jquery 4y ago
  Hilarious how?
oh_sigh 4y ago
Those employees were silly for not just starting their own firm if they were the main cause of success.
eigenvalue 4y ago
Again, these aren't poor downtrodden factory workers toiling away in the mines... these are unbelievably well compensated non-founders who have made far more than even the founders of most successful startups, all without taking true entrepreneurial risks. They are already rich beyond measure, and yet their greed is so extreme that they think they are entitled to extort the founder's shares at some knock-down price because of "reasons"-- to the point where they cry about it to the NYT in violation of their NDAs. Also, you are quite mistaken about the legal duty owed to employees in any capitalist society. You absolutely can wind down a firm, especially if you give sufficient notice in advance to employees (i.e., "we will shut down in 1.5 years from today").

ano88888 4y ago

Once upon a time, nytimes was a trustworthy and reliable news source. Now it is full of out of portion hatred towards tech and wealthy people.

koolba 4y ago
If you read a wider range of articles, you’ll see that they hate plenty of luddite and poor people too.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

rvba 4y ago

What is "$30mm"? Is it 30 million dollars? Why do people use "mm"?

naikrovek 4y ago
30 million. don't know why, but it's probably to do with "m" already being used elsewhere, or something.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- galangalalgol 4y ago
  M is 1000 in Roman numerals, that is the origin in accounting. It should be upper case though.
everydayentropy 4y ago
I think it's meant to be Roman numeral abbreviation for a thousand-thousand. You would think MM would be two thousand following the convention, but it's multiplicative like 10^6.
pmichaud 4y ago
In finance they use it because "M" is the roman numeral for 1000. MM is 1000*1000.
missedthecue 4y ago
m means mille, Latin for thousand. mille mille is therefore 1 million. It's used in other business contexts too. If you've ever paid for online ads, you'll know that CPM means cost per mille, the price of 1000 ad impressions.