CNN has a story today full of outraged Twitter paper millionaires in a leaking-email-anonymous-commenting fit because they can’t sell more than 20% of their Twitter stock.
This is the ugly unintended consequence of the otherwise savvy use of secondary markets pioneered by Facebook: Employees are increasingly becoming mercenary and feel entitled to treat private options as public stock. If allowed, what would be the point of being a private company?
Dick Costolo is sharply nipping this in the bud at Twitter. It’s being portrayed as restrictive, but it’s anything but. In the grand scheme of private companies, he’s still being outrageously pro-employee.
Pre-Facebook no one was allowed to sell private shares– the very idea was antithetical to the foundations of Silicon Valley. Employees get options so they are incentivized to work hard and help build a big company. The idea has long been that everyone– investors, founders, and employees– all make money at the same time. And that time is when a company goes public or gets acquired.
That started to change in the mid-2000s. Facebook pioneered incredibly favorable terms that allowed employees to sell stock, and help orchestrate buy-outs like the DST one in 2009.
There are unquestionably good things about the liquidity landscape changing in the Valley, particularly as IPOs get pushed farther and farther out. I have always been a big fan of partial liquidations for founders. It satisfies a near-term cash crunch and aligns incentives to build something for the long-term. And Facebook’s deft use of secondary markets allowed the company to focus on building a huge business without the distraction of IPO pressure.
But this was always the looming other side of the coin: Coddling a hopelessly mercenary culture that demanded instant liquidity when they wanted it.
From the article:
“But for early Twitter employees — who do hold actual, vested stock — the 20% rule is a frustrating form of golden handcuffs. Some people who would like to leave Twitter feel stuck, according to several current and former employees. Without selling more shares, they don’t have the cash to walk away.”
Fine, let them. For Costolo to succeed he can’t foster a culture of entitlement, he needs to do everything he can to build Twitter into a big public company. Given the recent valuations at which Twitter has raised funding, an acquisition is likely off the table. And building a popular service into a company worth $8 billion isn’t going to be easy.
Twitter may be six years old, but it is nowhere near ready to go public. It’s several years behind where it should be as a business, thanks to years of internal chaos. In fact, it’s absurd that reporters keep asking and should say something that Costolo doesn’t play footsie on the subject. He blatantly says it is not coming any time soon.
That means he needs to control where his equity is going and needs to keep and eye on the 500 shareholder restrictions that would essentially force the company to go public before it is ready. If employees don’t get the logic in what he’s doing, they should leave. Not just Twitter. They should leave Silicon Valley.
What Costolo is imposing isn’t dramatic or draconian. Not only was the idea of selling stock before liquidity unheard of pre-Facebook, most of the large Web companies in the Valley have restrictions on how employees can sell shares of their stock. Facebook, itself, sought to mitigate this by issuing RSUs instead of options. RSUs don’t turn into stock until six months after liquidity. And increasingly, many companies being formed now are locking down all trading of stock, lest they get into the bind.
It has unleashed bigger cultural problems within the company, according to multiple sources. Indeed, Facebook is lucky that its stock has continued to go up. With stock being sold willy-nilly to people who don’t really understand what they are buying, had things gone another way, Facebook could have been open to shareholder litigation.
What Costolo is doing is basic corporate governance. He is protecting the company. The fact that this is considered unreasonable shows how quickly people can become entitled to new things that were once considered a luxury.
It’s another impressive move by Costolo, who took similarly decisive action to get control of his board late last year. When Costolo was named CEO of Twitter, I wondered whether a guy who’s known as a good operator and a funny, nice guy had the vision and fortitude to be a real leader. Particularly, of a company that he didn’t found, that had already gone through the internal pain of ousting two founder-CEOs and was struggling to innovate on its core product. Twitter seemed to be kept alive by the sheer popularity of its product, and I wondered if it might go the way of MySpace at some point.
Privately, as I asked other entrepreneurs and investors in the Valley the Costolo question, I found that other people had the same uncertainty. It was no offense against Costolo. Just that no one had seen him in the CEO role and the Valley’s bias against non-founder CEOs. And with two ousted CEOs in a few years, Twitter was starting to look like one of those companies that had some unexplainable cultural dysfunction that no one could tame.
To put it bluntly: I loved the product, and I personally liked Costolo a great deal. But I wasn’t bullish. In fact, I wrote that Twitter ran the risk of being the only member of the huge Web 2.0 elite crew that also includes LinkedIn, Zynga and Facebook that didn’t build a massive multi-billion dollar company.
Over the last few months, I’ve done a total 180 on this view. Increasingly, the things I hear are convincing me that Costolo is decisive, tough, direct and has his own very strong vision for Twitter. If anyone can get the company to a successful IPO, it’s him.
(Illustration courtesy of Hugh MacLeod.)






[...] Go, Costolo, Go! Cashing Out Options Should Be a Privilege, Not a Right (pandodaily.com) [...]
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like[...] all here. Tags: employees, mercenary, privilege, [...]
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Liketwitter should never become a big public company, ever. the built-in dysfunction that never goes away ("sorry we did something wrong, please try again after some time") will cripple a big company. and the service is a globally intimate one. it demands a new kind of value system, a new kind of company. costolo is not the guy who can see this.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeSo pleased to see this argument coming to light. Lacy is factually incorrect and misguided in her main arguments regading options and value realization. She breaks the simple rule: Read first, Blog later. Factually incorrect First, numerous companies have traded options and stock privately for years (prior to FaceBook). Yes, there is a capital market outside of Silicon Valley. No, it is not venture-locked. So entrepreneurs and employees have freely traded stock, realized option value and even crystalized lock-ups circumventing public market handcuffs for at least a decade. For information on the most extreme and the latter example simply google "equity monetization". Why is this evidence of precedence important? It simply shows that Lacy is unaware that she is arguing to change a common institution: employee wealth creation, on the employee's terms. This is actually a much more interesting conversation than capital market precedents- should employees control their own wealth when they have created value for a business? Should options packages come with large, obvious warning signs: "exercise at your own risk"? Restricting employees only does exactly that- restrict employees. Some will argue that a restricted employee is a good employee. Thankfully, others will recognise that good people are the heartbeat of a successful venture business.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeThanks for the background Matt. Lots to keep learning on this topic.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI think this article illustrates the problem of financing a blog with money from firms and individuals that hold stakes in the companies that you have to cover. There are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides, especially if employees were told that they could sell their stock when they first negotiated their contracts. But this piece reads like executive board cheerleading during a controversial decision, with the title "Go, Costolo, Go!..." and "Costolo is decisive, tough, direct and has his own very strong vision for Twitter. If anyone can get the company to a successful IPO, it’s him." This article at least needs a disclosure at the top indicating possible conflicts of interest.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeThat only holds if you believe that Sarah doesn't believe what she is saying. This is an editorial. It expresses a view. It no more requires a disclosure than your comment does.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Likeeditorial or not, it would be good to know conflict of interest very clearly up front. It would only enhance sarah lacy's reputation. When Arrington and MG defend Path, they acknowledge that they have investments in path and state clearly why their support is logical and meaningful and not just an investor pushing a company. If Dick Costolo or Twitter are investors in pando, it is best to disclose it.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like@Raj - And if they're not investors in PD (which they're not, as far as I can tell) should Sarah have to disclose that they're not investors? Can't you see how ridiculous that is?
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeNeither Dick Costolo nor Twitter are investors in Pando. By my memory of the current Twitter board, no member of the board is an investor either.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeAn actual board member of Twitter being an investor in PD isn't the only possible conflict. Some of the funds that invested in PD also hold stakes in Twitter, such as SV Angel. That is the type of conflict of interest I was referring, as things that ought to be disclosed.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeMaybe if someone at Twitter could make their mobile device interface usable (it's completely atrocious), then they'd be allowed to sell some stock.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeYou know what, if you want your "surefire path to liquidity" then start your own damn company. Of course founders are going to take some cash off the table when they get a chance; and if you begrudge founders that, then Sarah's right, you should get out of the tech business. Almost universally, those getting options and vesting plans are employees. Not one of them worked for a single hour, without being compensated in cash for it. (And in the case of advisors, I've never heard of one complaining about their options). It only becomes a problem when we start comparing an employees compensation which, by the way, came with zero risk, a weekly paycheck, and likely some decent benefits; to founder compensation, which usually comes with months or years of zero paychecks, zero benefits, and massive risk. And until just recently, founders didn't usually get to cash in until there was a liquidity event that effected everyone (hopefully positively) anyway. So this whole secondary market thing is new, and not a universal thing. It's like everyone is looking for the unicorn and it's not healthy. I guess my two-cents adds up to - if you want outsized rewards, then you should take outsized risks and try starting your own company. A steady paycheck and benefits from day one is not risky.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeMPGJon, i am sure you'll succeed in recruiting employees to your company :p
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI hope so - we're still offering excellent stock options to our early employees, and I'm taking a page from Paige Craig/BetterWorks playbook - we're going to be doing GrowYourOwn Fridays twice a month, with topics our team gets to vote on, to teach them to successfully launch their own companies if that's what they wish to do someday. We want passionate, excellent people on our team, and passions grow, so we'd rather feed them than ignore them or think we've bought them out with stock options. Give a man a fish vs. Teach a man to fish; and if that runs headlong into entitlement/early exit issues for a potential employee, then we're probably not the right fit for each other:)
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeJon, my comment was sarcastic. Say an employee joined your company and worked for you for 6years fulfilling his obligations of passion, dedication etc. At the end of 6 years, he stillcannot sell his stock because the company is not public. However, company just closed a round of 500Million$ at 10B$ valuation. Turns out that all the execs (founders or not) got an opportunity to cash out, prior vcs got opportunity to cash out. However, the employees are required not to sell more than 20% of their vested/fully owned stock AFTER 6 years. Do you think that is reasonable?
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikePoint taken, heard of that happening. I guess my point was, employees shouldn't automatically get to take anything off the table if the execs/founders aren't. In the same vein, if founders and execs are getting to cash out, then so should their employees at the same time. To do otherwise would be unfair. In Twitter's case, how much of the founders stock did they get to cash out? All of it? Is there an earn out? Then maybe apply those same restrictions to the folks who got the options. Architecting what's fair and rewards those who worked hard for you is definitely important. But it should also be done in context of the deals given the early management teams as well which are rarely 100% equity cash outs, no strings attached.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeIf true, yours would be the only company, ever, where no employee worked unpaid overtime. They must *really* hate the management!
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeAnd what will Sarah Lacy say when a new round of funding comes in, and Dick and other execs cash out first? Do you really think it is healthy for a company to have lots of disgruntled engineers? They're looking at Facebook, and maybe they like Twitter, but this kind of stuff is bad for moral. "Good food, benefits, and work environment are a privilege and not a right." Would you say the same of an executive who just runs a really crappy environment? So it's not a right, and that excuses it and makes it immune from criticism? Wow, what a surprise, the old TechCrunch cabal is on the side of their VC friends and not on the side of works. "Take it or leave it"? That's the best you offer the Twitter employees while cheerleading him? Are you privately saying to yourself 'that's right you greedy little bastards, if you don't like it, quit. We can find more like you. But we can't find more like our pal Dick. Just leave, you're interchangeable."
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeI am not sure if she is "privately saying" that. I sense the tone of original article being more about "no more easy rewards", "no more entitlements", and "earning their wage". But, i agree with everything else you say. The employees honored their contract in full and are stuck with private company stock after working 4+ years. Instead of being a good CEO, dick is dicking with their future. Sure fire way to loose talent.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeSomeone has to call bullshit on this. You join a company and receive stock options. Those options have vesting on them already so that you can prove your loyalty. The people who are in the trenches (employees) get fractional amount of stocks compared to executives and founders. Even so, they accept these options. AFTER they have vested, the executives decide to change rules on the employees, because they feel that employees are getting rich and not showing loyalty! what right do they have to change an existing stock plan agreement that company signed off on? What is the basis for this? Loyalty? When will the company show loyalty to employees who took risk and joined them? One thing company can do is to buy back the shares from these employees at market price. Why won't they do that? Why won't they let all employees sell their shares FIRST to VCs in a round of funding BEFORE the executives?
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeOn the other hand, we don't know what these employees were told when they were considering joining the company. As often as not, stock options are just a way to get your labor on the cheap and never pay off for the employees. It's just the rare highly profitable ones that show up in the media.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeAmazing you even have to say this.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
LikeQuite right. Restricting employees from selling their private stocks should separate the ones who believe in the company vs the ones who are more speculative. Still wondering what the next big thing in terms of revenue is for Twitter.
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like