3 ms·
The problem is that all of these things assume an IPO as an exit. Funds aren't interested in building long-term profitable companies, they want to pump up the
by JonFish85 11y ago
The problem is that all of these things assume an IPO as an exit. Funds aren't interested in building long-term profitable companies, they want to pump up the stock price as high as they can and get the exit, profitability be damned.
Same with employees. If an employee has a 0.05% stake in a company that pulls in $100m/year in profits, that's an extra $50k if you do straight-up profit sharing. Problem is, these employees want no ownership whatsoever; they also don't want a long-term stake in the company, they want to cash out and move on.
It feels like the whole startup economy is operating on the "bigger sucker" plan these days. It's not about building sustainable businesses with solid profits, its about sprinting to an IPO and dumping the stock onto the public to let them deal with the consequences. Maybe I just have an overly bleak outlook on the current layout of startups (and I work for one).
- spacehome 11y ago> Same with employees. If an employee has a 0.05% stake in a company that pulls in $100m/year in profits, that's an extra $50k if you do straight-up profit sharing. Problem is, these employees want no ownership whatsoever; they also don't want a long-term stake in the company, they want to cash out and move on. This is the rational choice for the employee. Nobody wants more than 10% of their net worth wrapped up in a small nascent (read: very risky) asset. I'm sort of in the situation you describe, and I'd be very happy to sell my share at a steep discount to avoid the risk.