this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2024
19 points (91.3% liked)

Technology

59590 readers
4948 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

So, while Elon Musk is an asshole, and these terms are awful, there is more to it:

They involve stock awards, which are given by the company to the employee. They can either be options (which give you a choice to buy at a certain price, and presumably you wouldn't do that unless you can sell for higher price), or outright stock grants . They are given as part of compensation, and vest on a set timetable. (So, if someone was given 1000 shares, the employee would still see 1000 shares in some account, but they may only be able to access 100 of them every six months). So, this whole discussion is about shares the company gave to the employees in the first place.

Then, the other wrinkle is that SpaceX is a private company. That means that employees can't just go sell their shares on the open market. So SpaceX graciously offers to buy back these private shares at whatever they think they are worth at the time. While this sounds fishy, the only other real alternative is for the employees to hold on to the shares and sell them if they go public....

.... However, simply receiving the shares when they vest is a taxable event. So if SpaceX didn't offer some way for mere mortals to turn their shares to cash, then in effect they would be saddling them with an enormous tax burden and no way to raise the cash to pay it. So they have to do it this way.

Do they really need to confiscate an employees shares if they hurt Elon's fee-fees? Of course not. But that's the only dumb bit here. The rest is pretty standard for a private company who attracts workers with stock benefits.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 3 points 8 months ago

I have read that the actuality includes a loophole you didn't speak of:

Once someoen owns shares, they can privately-sell them, or give them away, or will them to someone..

Once enough people have done this, the "private" company becomes actually publically-traded, though not on any exchange..

..creating some legal difficulties, re regulations.

From that bit, which I never would have known to even consider ( some article I read, some years ago ), then it looks like people can sell their shares to another private-individual.

Maybe some jurisdictions prohibit that.

I don't know, I'm just identifying an angle people apparently haven't commonly considered.

_ /\ _

[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Sounds to me like the scam is to attract workers with stock benefits.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In public companies, it's not really a scam. It's a legitimate tool for these companies to get and keep the key people they need. The stock benefits are over and above their salary, after all, and equate to real money.

It's the startups and private companies where this all gets a bit scammy, because there is no liquid market for these shares. And those companies are more likely to offer extra stock instead of a competitive salary, but that stock may not be able to be cashed out until the company goes public, forcing the employees to stay until the IPO, unless they give up that theoretical big payday.

[–] Argonne@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

As long as you exercise all the stock they give you one way or another, you can leave whenever you like. You still own the stock if you leave. The real scammy part that no one seems to mention is to give really long vesting periods

[–] laxe@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

All Musk companies are sweatshops.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

To think that amount of wealth can be earned is fucking naive. More than naive. More than how a child is naive. It's willful ignorance, full stop, and if you are for it, you're the enemy of the people.

[–] Hypx@fedia.io 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)

SpaceX, from a financial standpoint, is just an elaborate Ponzi scheme for Musk, who treats all of his companies as his private fiefdom and personal piggy bank. In reality, none of them are genuinely profitable, and depend on government subsidies and capital investments to survive. The goal is to just build a barely viable business and then scam people with bullshit promises. Any real cash flow is immediately converted into cash for his personal use. Though from time to time, he uses that cash prop up another of his ventures. Very likely, all of this will come crashing down at some point, and it will be revealed that his companies are nothing like what they seem.

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

They've literally made reusable boosters and have multiple operations to deploy satellites and go to the space station (not to mention starlink ) . While I'm not a Musk fan, those achievements are irrefutable. SpaceX may or may not be making money, but it's a far cry from a ponzi scheme. It's why so many are trying to copy their technological achievements.

[–] Hypx@fedia.io 2 points 8 months ago

It is a Ponzi scheme from a financial sense. In the end, it's just a launch provider. It's not suddenly going to become the next Apple in terms of market value. But it is valued like that, and they were able to raise billions of dollars by lying about its potential business ventures.

[–] ringwraithfish@startrek.website 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I feel like Twitter (I will always deadname it) was the beginning of the end for him. Unfortunately, things like this can take years or decades to resolve, but whereas 5 years ago he had the midas touch and could do no wrong now there seems to be nothing but a stream of negative news about him.

Time will tell

[–] Hypx@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The "midas touch" is basically just securities fraud. Something he can't get away with forever.

[–] daddy32@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

In what sense? Lying about the actual capabilities of the business? Full autonomous drive next year and Mars at 2022?

[–] Hypx@fedia.io 0 points 8 months ago

All of those statements existed to either drum up investment money or get people to buy non-existent products. So those things are examples of securities fraud too.

[–] Cyclist@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I would argue that SpaceX is now to important to NASA, and therefore the US government, to be allowed to fail. It may not be under Elon's control, it may not be called SpaceX, but it will continue to exist.

[–] Hypx@fedia.io -1 points 8 months ago

Then it would be another Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, etc.

[–] Gingerlegs@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

Sounds like a healthy work environment

As a wise Arabian parrot once said, "Why am I not surprised? WHY am I not surprised!?"

[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] cbarrick@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

It's private equity. So presumably they have more discretion around buy backs than public stocks.

[–] le_saucisson_masquay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Isn't that market manipulation and anyway completely illegal to force buy back stock at 0$ ?? If I force you to sell me your house for 0$, whatever if it's in a contract, that would be illegal in Europe. 1€ would be fine tho.

[–] Kinglink@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

I mean.... isn't that also a legal thing?

If you know insider information that's not public (A company misbehaved being one of them) you are not supposed to trade stock to financially gain from it.

Now that's what you're supposed to do... Politicians have proven that's rules just for peasants, and most stock traders heavily benefit from this type of information, and unless your Martha Stewart for some reason, you get away with it... But my point is legally, if you know they misbehaved, that's immediately insider information?

Edit: I misunderstood the headling/rule. Sorry. Quite a shit thing that granted stock can be revoked, especially after you pay taxes. I wonder how legal it is, because if they can revoke it, is it actually yours and thus do you have to pay taxes on it?

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Didn't Martha Stewart go to jail?

[–] Kinglink@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago

That's kind of the point I was making. (She was the one who didn't get away with it)

[–] nman90@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's if SpaceX decides that the employee misbehaved, not the company that misbehaved, that allows them to ban that employee from selling private stocks. Also if you leave the company for any reason you lose out on 6 months of them or if you are fired they will buy back all of your stocks at $0, all the while you are paying taxes on your stocks. So the employees could possibly end up losing money from taxes on something they never actually got because the company said so.

[–] Kinglink@lemmy.world 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

Oops I misunderstood the direction. (I think it was if the employee deems they misbehaved. (I assumed "It" was the employee, not SpaceX. More obvious in hindsight I guess, my bad.)