Hacker News Reader

Comment by burnstek | Hacker News Reader

The assumption is that you work for the startup and have a critical enough position to earn equity, and therefore have more influence over its performance than that of a public company.

View on HN

That's right. In the same way that Buffett can select a company that he believes in and then drive it forward with a strategic investment, you're trying to do the same thing with the startup that you select and drive forward.

And "startup" doesn't have to be 3-4 people. I remember trying to recruit an engineer when Google was maybe 150 people. I tried to convince the engineer that Google was doing well and it wasn't as risky as it looked, but she decided to go work for Siebel instead.

In other words, don't waste money/time/effort on things where you can't make a big difference. Find an area where you can have a lot of leverage or expertise and put your chips there.

I question the amount of influence one can actually have on the the trajectory of a start-up, even if you are an early employee. Before I wised up and joined BigUltraMegaCorp, I worked for a number of small companies, and shared offices with brilliant, hard-workers, and we all moved mountains to try to make things work, but at the end of the day, no dice. I'm pretty much convinced at this point that start-up success is almost 100% luck, and you might as well play roulette instead of trying to pick the right one to work for early on.

Hindsight being 20/20, for every "She turned down being employee number 151 at Google to work for Siebel LOL" story, there are 10,000 (maybe 100,000) "I took a chance with Pets.com and they still owe me 6 months of back pay" stories.

Pets.com had a successful IPO, seems it could have easily beat out the Seibel career.

Possibly bad specific example, although they didn't survive even a year after their IPO. The point remains though. For every start-up success story, there are thousands of failures. Who's smart enough to pick the successes ahead of time AND get a job with one of them?

Exactly. There's a big difference between investing time and money in a venture where you have some control over the outcome and unnecessarily concentrating your passive investments in a single company (or even in anything less than the broad market, given the ubiquity of low-cost index funds). And even then, assuming your startup succeeds, you wouldn't want to wait too long before diversifying some of the profits (which the article supports).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com