2 ms·
I loved living in the Bay Area, but I always thought it would be funny if a new company that was on track to reach FANG-level status required investors to move
by Xcelerate 3y ago
I loved living in the Bay Area, but I always thought it would be funny if a new company that was on track to reach FANG-level status required investors to move elsewhere to a mid-size or smaller city (as their primary residence) as a condition to invest in them. This is mandated all the time for employees, particularly with the RTO effort, and I would be quite interested to see which wins out among the psychology of the ultra-wealthy: remain in the Bay Area or move elsewhere to gain even more wealth.
- groby_b 3y agoA company that is on track to reach even remotely close to FANG status has already taken on significant investments. From, by necessity, many investors in the Bay Area. That means the board wouldn't put requirements on investors, and they'd reign in any attempt by the CEO to do so. Even if the idea of restricting investors by location wasn't incredibly bad business in the first place. You're also forgetting that money makes residence meaningless. If you are indeed in the "ultra wealthy" class, you have a residence in wherever is most advantageous to you, and other pads to hang in. Your investments will happen through companies located wherever is most advantageous to you as well. Need a new location, spin up an extra company. It's an interesting thought experiment, but it seriously misjudges the balance of power between folks having money and those possibly generating money at a later point.