Hacker News Reader

Comment by gumptionary | Hacker News Reader

Tony Aquila is the CEO of both companies - Canoo and Aquila Family Ventures. I'll never understand why it's okay for CEOs to have multiple concurrent jobs, while one of the biggest fervors of the pandemic was when employees were found to have... multiple concurrent jobs.

View on HN

Do you manage your own money and finances in addition to having a day-job?

That's what he's doing, albeit in a more complex situation and likely higher wealth bracket given he sold his last company for $Bs. The only thing that strikes me as odd about it is calling oneself "CEO" of the family office. I don't know what title is customary but CEO seems out of place. If it said he was "Chair" of the Aquila Family Ventures family office or something it would stand out far less.

Being a CEO of your family office shouldn't really be a "real job" - it should take up maybe a day or two out of your month if it's being run correctly. To me this would be the same as if a product manager had a side hustle doing some accounting for friends and family. It's fine.

The selling services back and forth thing, I get it, it probably saves some people some work and it might even work out better economically for the company, but the optics are never going to be solid and people are always going to question it, so imo it's not worth it, but... it is quite common.

It’s fine for anyone to have multiple concurrent jobs as long as all their employers know about it. Hiding things is where people get into trouble (and not just with jobs).

This is a totally fair point. The incongruity arises for me in that if I said in a job interview process that I'd be continuing to hold another position while adding this one, I'd get laughed out of the room. If it's critical that rank and file guys don't have divided time or loyalties, why is the standard different for the single person most responsible for success or failure of the company?

Aquila Family Ventures is basically a family office that the CEO likely just oversees but doesn't run day-to-day. It's a different thing than having multiple full-time jobs like Musk.

It's a shell company used to dodge taxes, presumably? Or something similarly nefarious; avoiding liabilities or whatever. Not really a company but a legal instrument.

> It's a shell company used to dodge taxes, presumably?

It's a holding company for the CEO's assets. Virtually everyone worth $10 million+ has one.

When and why did people become so conspiratorial and see boogeymen in everything they don't grasp?

It's hasn't been a conspiracy theory since the Panama papers came out. Everyone is now aware of the extent rich people go to use tax havens and are rightfully upset. They make record profits, encourage irresponsible consumerism, and don't even pay their fair share for the damage they inflict upon the world.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/panama-paradise-pandora-pap...

Furthermore there's a reason rich people flock to places like Delaware, Washington, or California. Those states all have tax schemes that allow the wealthy to pay the least amount of taxes.

Hell us rubes even suffer through coach so that the ultra wealthy's luxury jets are subsidized.

https://www.businessinsider.com/ultra-wealthy-private-flyers...

We understand exactly what they're doing, just because we don't agree with it doesn't make us ignorant or uneducated.

People flock to Delaware because it's the most corporate-friendly state, especially regarding regulations and court cases.

Washington and California are two massive economies, so it's no surprise that rich people flock there.

If this CEO wanted to register a shell company to dodge taxes, he would have done it in better places than Southlake, Texas [1]. Anyone can register an LLC as long as they have valid identification and pay the $300 Texas filing fee...nothing nefarious.

Talking about the Panama Papers will be a long story, but notice how relatively few Americans are on that list. It was mostly people from developing countries with weak rule of law and high levels of corruption...the type where rich folks hide assets to avoid the government or rival business goons coming for it, and it's much easier to cheat taxes in those countries because of weak law enforcement.

1- https://pitchbook.com/profiles/limited-partner/232176-79

California and Washington are amongst two of the most regressive tax systems in the United States.

They punish the poor more than the rich in both those states. That's why they flock there and the size of their economy is a side effect of that.

California of all places doesn't have low taxes for wealthy people. Its tax system actually depends on wealthy people. (IPOs specifically)

It has low taxes for people who've lived there a long time.

There are plenty of consulting/writing/etc. jobs that are explicitly fractional or part-time where someone may have multiple clients. And this is even the case with fractional CFO positions and the like.

> "if I said in a job interview process that I'd be continuing to"

"act as Treasurer for my local church"

I'd get…?

The last three jobs I've held, I've had to state up front in writing that I will continue to act as the paid IT support for my spouse's one-person consulting firm. Hasn't been an issue yet.

Three jobs ago I also had a very small side consulting gig that came along after I'd been hired, so I had to get it cleared. It was at the behest of one of their board members though, so it really wasn't a hassle...

Sounds like a hold co. Even startups worth 100K may have the founders hold the stock through a family holding corporation (which may then also be used to "hold" vehicles).

As others said, he just runs his family office, likely 99% of the work is delegated to people who work for the family office.

Not sure why you’re getting downvoted as this is a legit question I’d like answered.

Yeah, but answered by who?

Because CEO's decide which is okay and which isn't, and because fuck you, that's why.

No, it's not logical, or consistent, or rationally defensible. They don't give a shit, and they don't believe they have you answer to you. If they choose to give any answer at all, it will be bullshit in the "On Bullshit" sense of the word; the answer will not be made with any consideration for truth, but just to provide whatever words the speaker thinks will shut you up.

No they don't, boards do.

Well, they are CEOs, and are therefore better people than the rest of us workerbees and get to operate under totally different rules.

This but unsarcastically. Linux Torvalds, Anders Hejlsberg, and other elite developers also operate under totally different rules than worker bees too.

No, we're not on the same footing as a CEO candidate or 10x developer. Anyone who is sure as heck wouldn't be wasting their life collecting karma points on HN.

I suppose you believe all these billionaires are self-made and that having a handout of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a network of very rich people you know to make investments, made no difference. 'Anyone can succeed through hard work'.

The really rich CEOs collect imaginary karma points on X ...

A lot of bad in our society can be explained by the fact that a lot of people seriously believe that some people are inherently better than others, and deserve to be at the top of the hierarchy, to follow different rules, to get more than one vote, that they are "elite" and should therefore get better treatment. Egalitarianism is not a universally held doctrine.

I thought the downvotes were coming from people who didn't get my sarcasm, but it could also be that HN readers really believe that CEOs are inherently better people...

People aren't inherently better than others, but people are infinitely better at some things than others.

Terrence Tao is inherently better at mathematics than I am, and I'd be a fool to claim otherwise. Torvalds is a much better programmer than I am. There are endless examples.

Exactly.

Now if we start arguing if Torvalds "deserves" to be richer than Gates (even though both are quite better than adequate programmers from their time) that's a different story.

But in the end most of it really sounds like sour grapes and complaining.

I'm not saying people aren't better at things than others. The thread was about whether these people deserved special treatment or a different set of rules because of this.

Egalitarianism is about equal social treatment and rights, not equal ability.

I started my career alongside a variety of people who are now CEOs, VPs, distinguished engineers, CTOs, etc. and had a chance to observe them as they rose far, far above me. Luck played a factor in their rise, sure, but so did talent and an immense level of drive; their titles are ones they earned.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com