7 ms·

Not sure, it might be a way to judge which employee is loyal to the company

daveguy 3y ago
Nah, you couldn't blame early employees for at least partially cashing out. I'd probably sell 80%. Anyone who hangs on to all of it probably has a gambling addiction... Let it ride! At what point do you assign sufficient gambling problem or disloyalty?
bruce511 3y ago
I think holding stock at the place you work signals z few things, but loyalty isn't one of them. Most companies aren't tradeable, and most employees don't have equity, so its not like owning-where-you-work is a default position. Most investment advisors caution against having a significant part of your assets in your employer, because you expose yourself to excessive risk. (If the company tanks you lose you job, and savings, at the same time.) The question to ask is this; imagine you won a million $, would your first instinct be to invest it with your employer? Probably not. You would get an advisor, make a plan, build a balanced portfolio, diversify risk. So to me, a signal from employees not selling some of their stake (assuming its significant) is that they're poor at financial planning. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't.
- Guthur 3y ago
  The majority of the advisors employees could afford just follow the crowd. They are successful because "number always go up". An octopus could probably do it as effectively as most advisors. I remember one guy I talked to just after 2022 escalation in the Russo Ukrainian war and his point of view was, "this is great, Russia will be defeat in no time and then there will be all the rebuilding economic activity". I don't believe the moron came up with that fantasy by himself, he was told.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    I'm not thinking of financial advice here as "which stocks to pick", but more prosaic things like diversification, market sectors, growth versus dividend, high and low liquidity, short and long terms, and so on. A "plan" considers your goals, your age, your income, your responsibilities, and so on.
- elevatedastalt 3y ago
  While this is completely correct, startup founders inhabit a reality distortion field of their own where anything short of full and absolute devotion to the mission is seen as "not being serious". It's not enough that you like the job, and are happy that it pays well, you need to be a card carrying member of the club. This makes sense for companies that have like under 50 employees, but far too many founders expect to hire zealots well into the 500+ employee range. This same shit shows up in interviews too, where candidates are expected to profess just how much they would LOVE to work for that company, or how much they care about the mission. Yadda Yadda.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    Yeah absolutely. On the up side startups don't have equity you can trade, so you're unlikely to demonstrate disloyalty this way. And to be fair, if you go work for a startup you know what you're getting into. (And hopefully you know that the equity they give you has about the same value as a lottery ticket.)

Nah, you couldn't blame early employees for at least partially cashing out. I'd probably sell 80%. Anyone who hangs on to all of it probably has a gambling addiction... Let it ride! At what point do you assign sufficient gambling problem or disloyalty?

bruce511 3y ago

I think holding stock at the place you work signals z few things, but loyalty isn't one of them. Most companies aren't tradeable, and most employees don't have equity, so its not like owning-where-you-work is a default position. Most investment advisors caution against having a significant part of your assets in your employer, because you expose yourself to excessive risk. (If the company tanks you lose you job, and savings, at the same time.) The question to ask is this; imagine you won a million $, would your first instinct be to invest it with your employer? Probably not. You would get an advisor, make a plan, build a balanced portfolio, diversify risk. So to me, a signal from employees not selling some of their stake (assuming its significant) is that they're poor at financial planning. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't.

Guthur 3y ago
The majority of the advisors employees could afford just follow the crowd. They are successful because "number always go up". An octopus could probably do it as effectively as most advisors. I remember one guy I talked to just after 2022 escalation in the Russo Ukrainian war and his point of view was, "this is great, Russia will be defeat in no time and then there will be all the rebuilding economic activity". I don't believe the moron came up with that fantasy by himself, he was told.
- bruce511 3y ago
  I'm not thinking of financial advice here as "which stocks to pick", but more prosaic things like diversification, market sectors, growth versus dividend, high and low liquidity, short and long terms, and so on. A "plan" considers your goals, your age, your income, your responsibilities, and so on.
elevatedastalt 3y ago
While this is completely correct, startup founders inhabit a reality distortion field of their own where anything short of full and absolute devotion to the mission is seen as "not being serious". It's not enough that you like the job, and are happy that it pays well, you need to be a card carrying member of the club. This makes sense for companies that have like under 50 employees, but far too many founders expect to hire zealots well into the 500+ employee range. This same shit shows up in interviews too, where candidates are expected to profess just how much they would LOVE to work for that company, or how much they care about the mission. Yadda Yadda.
- bruce511 3y ago
  Yeah absolutely. On the up side startups don't have equity you can trade, so you're unlikely to demonstrate disloyalty this way. And to be fair, if you go work for a startup you know what you're getting into. (And hopefully you know that the equity they give you has about the same value as a lottery ticket.)