Hacker News Reader

Comment by YokoZar | Hacker News Reader

Indeed, employees often effectively sell their stock to existing owners via share buybacks.

This seems entirely rational to me - I've bet a significant part of my career on the success of the company I work for, why should I also bet my savings? Diversification has real value, and going all-in on one company is just a bad bet.

View on HN

At the end of the day, an employee is just a special class of vendor -- scrape away all of the normative cruft that gets injected into these discussions, and you have a fee-for-service relationship between a customer and a supplier.

And lots of people would rather just be that supplier, who gets paid a specified amount of money for a specified provision of service, and not be forced to bear short-term risk or to hold out for a long-term upside that depends on lots of stuff they have no control over working out for the best.

Well, they're different in that they're vendors and also vendees. The theory behind employee ownership is that it makes them better vendees on top of maybe making them better vendors.

> vendees

"Customers"?

Can you explain what you mean? How are vendors selling services to an organization also "vendees" within the same capacity?

nit: With a buyback, the buyer is the corporation itself, and the cash comes from the corporate treasury. Transitively this is "selling to existing owners", but it's not like their shares are transferred to other shareholders. Rather, the shares cease to exist and the value of all other shares increases to reflect the reduced number of shares outstanding.

Mechanically it's pretty similar to if the company had just paid out cash as salaries (cash leaves the corporate treasury and enters the employee's brokerage account at market values), but the market is the intermediary, and the tax and accounting treatment is pretty different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com