Hacker News Reader

Comment by bornfreddy | Hacker News Reader

That sounds like a cherry on top to me. I mean, considering the cost of the business that they paid for, fintech expenses shiuld be negligible. Otherwise it sounds like a great business - buy successful businesses without successors, shape them up, motivate employees and reap the benefits, long term. Win-win-win for everyone involved and society too.

View on HN

It's like any acquisition, you don't let the acquired shop keep running workday if the main company is running base camp. It makes sense to consolidate.

Once they lose control by selling 80% to the employees, they no longer have that power though, right?

> fintech expenses shiuld be negligible

And that's the rub - it'd be more profitable to thr mothership if the fintech expenses were not negligible over 20 years.

Do you think so? Their profits are their mothership's profits, so any expenses are, too. It's like putting from one wallet to another and harming the businesses (assuming their fintech solution is not optimal) along the way. I don't get it, but from the article I don't think this is what is happening anyway. It wouldn't make sense either.

> It's like putting from one wallet to another and harming the businesses

Sort of, but they'll be pulling money from a joint wallet that's 80% owned by other people. I expect even if the workers gain majority ownership, they will have no control - so the fintech service contracts will likely outlive the businesses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com