Hacker News Reader

Comment by bane | Hacker News Reader

This sounds like a company in big trouble and trying desperately to stem attrition and improve tanking morale.

According to crunchbase they're basically owned by a private equity firm now (which is rarely a fun place to be) and are raising something like a billion dollars a year -- which basically appears to be around what their operating costs are (employee count of that year * $250k/yr).

They're either not bringing in any real revenue, or growing at the rate of revenue. Multiple raises per year (of weirdly different values) indicate frequent requests for more money.

Are they growing or are they dying? Either way they aren't doing it through revenue, and they're not going public so the financials stay very hidden.

View on HN

Anybody who thinks this offer is meant to benefit employees isn't looking much beyond the surface. The fact that it includes a release of claims, a noncompete clause, and an NDA is a solid clue that this move is intended to benefit Palantir and not employees.

Edit: forgot noncompete clause.

That's all standard stuff. If I was at a company for 11 years, I'd sure as hell want to cash out. Whether their offer is a good price or not, who knows.

You can only cash out 12.5%. 12 month non-compete for a small cash out is a pretty double edged deal.

But if you are still working there and do not plan to move then being able to liquidate up to $500,000 worth of shares seems like a very good offer.

If you can liquidate $500,000 worth of shares, that means you still have at least $3,500,000 worth of shares in a company that has no plans to ever go public.

For their California employees who wish to stay in California, the non-compete doesn't matter much. They are virtually unenforceable here.

I am not a lawyer, but it's possible the non-compete is enforceable in California in this case.

When an employee gets something "in kind" for the non-compete agreement, which arguably this is, then it may be upheld. For example, if a company pays you non-salary money in exchange for a non-compete agreement, then it may be upheld. Consider the case of former HP CEO Mark Hurd when he went to Oracle.

What's not enforceable in CA are non-competes in, for example, normal employment contracts that apply to everyone.

Edit: To be clear, Mark Hurd was allowed to work at Oracle, but he had to give the money back he got for signing the agreement.

Being standard doesn't mean it's not shitty.

Why can't both benefit? Palantir merely offered the deal, and employees (and ex-employees) accepted.

It's a pretty crappy deal. It was only accepted because otherwise these people would be sitting on worthless shares, waiting for an exit/IPO that doesn't look like it's coming anytime soon.

They are not "basically owned" by a private equity firm. They have raised money at high valuations, and I strongly doubt that they have sold away a controlling stake in the company. So, they still get to make their own decisions.

They are definitely bringing in real revenue. Many firms have raised substantially more than they need to, because they have been well aware that funding could dry up.

They've raised more money under private equity than all the rest of the rounds combined x 5. The last round, by a private equity firm, was almost the size of all other raises combined.

They've raised 15 rounds that are publicly known. Every single raise since Sep 2013 has been under private equity. This sounds more like the company is being sold on the private market and each new owner is putting in a year's worth of cash infusion for operating costs.

Are those fund raising rounds? I dunno. But it's one of the weirdest fund raising profiles I've ever seen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com