Employees get options at common stock prices. The valuations you see, like $12bn, are for preferred stock. So no employees got stock priced at $12bn, but all of them get paid at a $5.15bn valuation.
Not saying they did well, but depending on the 409a valuations, they still might have made money.
Edit: friends, if you’re going to downvote please leave a comment as to why. It’s okay to disagree! There’s a lot of misleading FUD in these discussions about equity. It’s helpful for everyone to hear those sides.
Their options should be priced lower, but the common stock isn't valued according to the $5.15B. They raised $300M at $12B and $425M at $7.4B, which are both under water, so those shareholders will use their liquidation preference to get paid at least 1x. Assuming those rounds owned 7% of the company, there is at most $4.4B left for the remaining 93% of shareholders. That's about 8% less. If they deducted fees, legal services, or retention packages or had worse liquidation preferences or more underwater rounds, then it gets even lower.
More specifically, when employees are granted options contracts the strike price of those contracts is based on the last valuation of the company prior to the grant. If all is going well and the valuation is increasing those options are also increasing in value. Here we have a sale which values the company lower than the prior valuation. Recent option grants will likely be underwater, earlier grants would still be profitable.
> The valuations you see, like $12bn, are for preferred stock.
No, the valuation is for the whole company, all of its shares, preferred and common. How this value is distributed among shareholders depends on the deal, but generally there is a “seniority”, roughly: creditors (debt holders) are paid first, preferred shares next, then common shareholders last. This order can be negotiated as part of the sale.
> So no employees got stock priced at $12bn, but all of them get paid at a $5.15bn valuation.
It’s just not possible to know what each individual employee’s outcome is. We don’t know how much of that 5.5 billion will be left over for common shareholders including the employees. Note that employees have received salaries so their overall outcome is greater than zero dollars, but perhaps their total compensation outcome is lower than they hoped for the time they put in.
> Not saying they did well, but depending on the 409a valuations, they still might have made money.
Yes, some might have and some might have not. We just don’t know without more details.
Edit: singron’s answer (sibling comment) attempts to model the employee outcome in a rough but reasonable way.
The way they get to $12.5bn is multiplying the preferred share price by the total outstanding shares. But the common shares, while still included in that calculation, are not worth the same amount of money.
They have a different strike price for options that is set via a 409a.
It’s possible that employees got, at the peak, grants with strike prices at a $2bn 409a valuation. We don’t know. What we do know is that no employee ever got grants with a strike price of a $12.5bn valuation. That’s just not how this works.
Agreed that no one wants to watch shotput when the ball is launched out of a cannon, but people might be interested when the robots competing are anthropomorphs.
Not OP, but a naive guess is it would mean that you'd have your schema defined in an ORM (for example, Prisma). The advantage here is that the LLM gets context on both the schema and how the schema is used throughout the application.
It is possible, but not by default. Your app must request additional permissions for indefinite background execution. It's quite difficult to get your app approved with said permission.
> They tend to be more nerdy, introverted, and less masculine(lower testosterone, less aggressive).
Not a fan of you making this up based on perceived stereotypes and then using it to justify an argument. I do agree that these numbers are complicated and require analysis on data that we probably don't have access to.
Enough (of both genders) were creepy and assuming/entitled while I was there in 2010. Being more beta, they tended to have difficulty getting laid unless rich and were more open to using/abusing any pull they were perceived to have.
I'm curious why you think I am making this up. Testosterone is linked with higher levels of aggression. Anyone who is employed to write code and work with computers works a sedentary job.
I don't think it is a ridiculous notion that your average Googler will be nerdier or smarter than the average man. And I hope that just because "low-testosterone" is used as an insult by alt-right losers, you don't associate me with that group or characterize my comment as troll-y.
> Testosterone is linked with higher levels of aggression.
Testosterone is correlated to higher levels of aggression similar to how estrogen is correlated to emotional instability. It leads to false and rather crappy conclusions which misrepresent what hormones actually does to the human mind.
Modern research on testosterone show that higher levels increase the response that a man or woman has when their social status is challenged. If social status is maintained in a group through violence and aggression then those correlate to testosterone, but you can as easily have a company where productivity is the primary trait for social status and then testosterone levels will correlate to productivity when someone have their social status challenged.
From a biological perspective, this has a very basic reason. Testosterone goes up when the chance for procreation is high and it can be seen as a modulating effect that encourage the individual to hold on to the current beneficial social status. Aggression in itself is not an effective strategy for that goal and is only relevant if the local culture reward aggression.
I think it's a hasty jump to make assumptions about the biology of people based on their job description. Plenty of engineers I work with exercise regularly. I'm curious, do you have any links to research correlating sedentary jobs and testosterone levels?
You are just digging your grave deeper here. Don't assume high testosterone = must be a blue collar worker or sumpin. That's basically classist BS.
Pushing code because it is one of the highest paid professions in the world right now and exercises real power could be construed as aggressive as hell on the face of it. There's a reason people bitch about "brogrammer" culture. Even if you ignore that, desk jockeys aren't all sedentary losers. Plenty are buff and pursue Manly Man (TM) activities in their off hours, like sports, martial arts, etc.
> They tend to be more nerdy, introverted, and less masculine(lower testosterone, less aggressive).
and
> Testosterone is linked with higher levels of aggression. Anyone who is employed to write code and work with computers works a sedentary job.
> I don't think it is a ridiculous notion that your average Googler will be nerdier or smarter than the average man. And I hope that just because "low-testosterone" is used as an insult by alt-right losers, you don't associate me with that group or characterize my comment as troll-y.
At no point did OP say:
> Don't assume high testosterone = must be a blue collar worker or sumpin.
Your statement isn't even the inverse of OP's statement. The only one that said that is you.
> Testosterone is linked with higher levels of aggression. Anyone who is employed to write code and work with computers works a sedentary job
How is it unreasonable to infer from this that "Obviously, high testosterone guys must work physical jobs" (often called blue collar jobs)? What jobs should I infer are the opposite of sedentary?
How is it reasonable TO infer that? If the claim is that sedentary jobs lower testosterone, it does not follow that non-sedentary jobs raise testosterone. If A => B, the statement NOT A => NOT B is not necessarily true. That's just rudimentary logic.
My question is "What's the opposite of a sedentary job? Is it or is it not a physical job, AKA a blue collar job?"
I do not see where OP said sedentary jobs lower testosterone. I do not see any statement clarifying the exact nature of the presumed relationship between testosterone levels and job type.
You are the only one who has associated a sedentary job with being a loser or a blue class job with high testosterone. I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth.
You seem to be misconstruing a "tendency" for an "absolute blanket on all"
Google has quite a few ripped masculine employees doing dev work in Mountain View... They have to stay in good shape if only for their brains to continue working at the highest level...
Yeah sry if I came off aggressive man. Everyone in this thread misinterpreting what I said probably reflects more on ME than them. I need to get better at writing...
I take it that you didn't mean to, but you effectively trolled this thread by tossing flamebait into an inflammatory topic. Please don't do that in the future.
Dude, how did you get "right-wingers are losers and there are none at Google" from "low-test is an insult used by ALT-right losers"? I wasn't talking about political leaning of Google employees at all.
I seriously gotta get better with my words lol. Everyone in this thread seems to be getting a different meaning out of what I said.
I see that several of your comments were taken backwards and sideways, and I extend my sympathy.
Your mistake is not your wording, which is perfectly clear, it's the erroneous choice of the topic article to engage, as that defines both the audience and the discourse manner.
The difference is that if the company pays dividends then the stock price will drop because it represents a claim on a smaller amount of assets. So you can achieve exactly the same effect yourself by periodically selling a small percentage of your holdings. It's like having a big piece of a small cake versus a small piece of a big cake: if you get the same amount of cake in the end then who cares how it's shaped.
If the dollar value of your holdings appreciates by 7% each year and you sell 4% of your holdings each year (by dollar value), you can keep selling indefinitely. (This is, incidentally, exactly how retirement accounts work.)
If you sell a fixed % of your holdings every year (that is equivalent to the % you would get paid in cash due to a dividend) you will never run out of equity.
My usual profile for those bikes is tourists and young professionals. These were grizzled, grubby older men. Plus, the theory of these bikes is as last-mile transportation; I've never seen them on BART before or since.
