So, yeah, some of us are still working because we had the naivete to want to make the world a better place.
It's amazing to me that so many people think that the point of a tech job is to walk away with a boat load of cash.
when I see kids graduate now making 100k first year out of college mostly because they graduated during the right time in the right place, I am happy for them but they don't realize how lucky they are
Well, thats the part where wisdom comes in. No one gets lucky. Some people do. But even those don't get lucky all the time.
If you are making $100K straight out of college. Just understand that its an exceptional period in your life. Be grateful and lock up every single cent into some investments.
Or when reality of life comes to hit in mid-30s. Your best is behind you, you have nothing to show for what you've earned, and whats worse- There is no way of earning it back again.
* Startup in Midwestern city. Company never grew much, pivoted several times, still in business selling storage products. If I'd stayed with them, I would have had a long, boring career. One guy I knew did stay there and had a long, boring career.
* Heavy industrial company in Detroit. Acquired by a bigger company long after I left, Detroit plant closed.
* Time-sharing startup company in greater NYC area. Went bust. Technology worked fine, sales not so much. Left 3 weeks before shutdown.
* Time-sharing startup company in Silicon Valley. More successful. Acquired by bigger company after I left. Time-sharing was clearly on the way out. Time to leave that industry.
* Big aerospace company R&D operation. That's where I got into theory. Split into several units years after I left, some acquired by other companies.
* Small startup that got big. Cashed out.
* Careful about spending, reached retirement age in good shape.
It would be entertaining[1] to know what proportion of "paper millionaires" in the field do hang on to the money and could retire to the Turks and Caicos. Also what proportion of valley employees become paper millionaires in the first place.
[1] And I mean entertaining because I'm in a bizarrely cynical mood this morning.
Sad that cashing out may have ejected "staying and contributing" as a measure of success and indicator of worth.
This feels a bit wrong to me. I don't think it takes bad luck or poor decisions to not be able to retire early for most people. I think it's quite to opposite. I think it's pretty rare and you need a serious stroke of good luck to be able to retire significantly early.
Maybe it's different in the valley, (I'm not even US based at all), but where I am, very very few people are financially independent enough to retire early.
Obviously, it depends a bit on your definition of 'early'. My dad worked average jobs and never got any big lucky breaks (apart from being part of the generation that was buying property at the right time to get in cheap and be downsizing at the peak), but has saved well and is retiring something like 5 years ahead of the standard age. That's do able with just good decisions and no bad luck. But I think what's being talked about here is retiring more like 30 years early when you are in you mid 30s. That requires some serious good luck and is fairly rare.
You may lament the fact you had some options that you didn't sell at the right time. Well the average person has never had options that were worth selling at all. I've worked in tech my whole career, including some funded startups of the 40-60 people sort of size, but never had stocks or options even offered.
And even based on your comment, I still think that statement sounds wrong to me.
> a small but not insignificant percentage of them get rich.
It happening to a small percentage means it require good luck for it to happen to you, not just the absence of bad luck (which implies it happens to most people unless they have bad luck).
I had a similar issue to you a few years back - I was offered a buyout in a partnership that would have put a nice chunk of $ in my pocket, but I (naively) believed that staying in would put more. It fell apart and ended up being worth much less.
I'm not sure I'd have made a _different_ decision, but I certainly have learned to recognize when these moments appear so I can more rationally understand my own decisions.
Anyway - this is all to say, don't sweat it. You've learned, you're lucky to have picked good companies, now take that wisdom and make a less-greedy decision next time.
If that is indeed what happened then that's on you for buying on margin (which is inherently riskier), and no fault of the broker. If that's not what happened, and the broker executed trades without instructions from you, I hope you got them fired at minimum.
Tangentially related: Martingale betting system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)). Aside from its theoretical impossibility, this system typically fails in practice when the gambler hits a house limit and can no longer continue placing bets.
You also have to put up a huge amount of capital upfront to purchase the options. For Mark Cuban, this could be done on credit to the bank, but likely not possible for a single digit millionaire.
It was only during a unique period of irrational exuberance that banks were open to underwriting options for such new and untested equities.
Keep in mind that any time a bank underwrites an option, particularly if it’s for a short position, there’s no guarantee they will honor it when shit hits the fan. Legally, they are obligated to. But in practice you may only recieve a percentage of what you were promised.
We think about market risk and forget about the downside risk imposed by neglect, fraud and incompetence.