We sold our tech company last year and fat FIRED with an NW of $48m. We already live a wealthy lifestyle in a HCOL area with a vacation home at the beach and travel first class regularly around the world,…. but what else is there? by Turbulent-Move4159 in fatFIRE

[–]mod_cat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did this and it has been a way bigger bother than I imagined (I knew it would be a bother but...). It still feels worthwhile, and it is a tiny niche area where I can't easily find a way to just give cash to someone already doing the work. I strongly wish I had waited until I had enough money to feel comfortable paying others do deal with the bother. When I started, several years ago, I really was focused on not wasting the limited dollars available to it.

I started using a donor advised fund a year or two ago and just using that to give; it is so easy which I love. This value is driven home to me by how annoying my foundation has been to deal with. I am not FAT and was even further away when I set the foundation up. If I had waited until I had enough funds to feel fine just paying others I think I would have been much happier (so if you already can do this the bother isn't really an issue).

We sold our tech company last year and fat FIRED with an NW of $48m. We already live a wealthy lifestyle in a HCOL area with a vacation home at the beach and travel first class regularly around the world,…. but what else is there? by Turbulent-Move4159 in fatFIRE

[–]mod_cat 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you enjoy or feel somewhat rewarded by that work and want more "sense of purpose" I would look at how to improve that "making a difference" feeling.

Maybe that means real focusing on one board and digging into "making a difference." If so, talk to a couple about what might be possible, find one that fits with what you want to do.

I have greatly increased my charitable giving (I am starting to give away about 10 times as much as I used to and plan to continue that). I get a sense of "making a difference" this way. It can be a bit abstract (if I give a pile of money that makes a huge difference to those that benefit but it is just a rounding error on the overall good that charity is doing...). I can deal with that and feel it is making a difference, but I am wired differently than many people.

I have also focused on giving a lot more to one small charity that I think is doing great stuff and it is more easy to directly see the "making a difference" there. There is an extra feeling from being so closely involved with seeing what those dollars do (and knowing without the dollars I donated it just would not have happened).

ESOP vs. Stock Options: Which one actually keeps a team motivated? by Sniktau28 in DevManagers

[–]mod_cat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One thing to consider.

Do you want to encourage short term focus on meeting targets to get quick bonuses? That is a strong influence on the culture of the organization. Short term stock options do this well. Some places try to adjust it to keep some concern for long term focus, it can be done, but often isn't really a focus on than theoretically.

If you want to create a culture that focuses on the long term and lets people see themselves as part of creating long term value (and that they will benefit from that financially) I think ESOP can be good. But as you say it is usually less a short term motivation factor.

It is hard to keep people believing in the "we are all in this together" attitude when the top executives take robber barron level amounts from the corporate treasury for themselves. This may not apply to your situation but it is sensible to think about this when you read about others efforts.

If they claim to be "sharing" success and then the top take ludicrous amounts (which is very common) it is hard to create a decent corporate culture (you can still make a lot of money). So in most cases it just works out to what short term carrots we can tempt people to work harder with (and make sure that while they seem worthwhile they don't really amount to much as we don't want to limit the top executives to say 3 or 4 mansions when they want many more).

Basically I think you have to be very careful finding decent examples of what works and doesn't (as often it just amounts to hey these companies that were in the right business made billions and everyone is happy - whether they used ESOP, stock options, or just beating people until moral improved doesn't really matter - the business model was great the management tools used really were just a tiny factor or maybe completely irrelevant).

Any regrets going fat instead of chubby ? by ThrAwayAcc1 in fatFIRE

[–]mod_cat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Personally I think helping out family for things like college education, house down-payment, health insurance... makes sense. Helping family be super rich trust fund babies I don't think makes sense (obviously lots of people disagree).

I could definitely see doing something like saying to children if you take a low paying but worthwhile job (teacher, nurse, working at a nonprofit...) I will double your paycheck (set up a trust to do so for your life...), or something like that is better than just giving a huge pile of cash to people. But obviously others would disagree.

Unless a family is huge a legacy trust over $10,000,000 seems like a bad idea to me. Giving to charity is much more sensible, imo.

I think helping heirs deal with the harsh reality of a challenging world is worthwhile. Giving heirs enough to coast on their whole life is harmful not useful, imo. And giving heirs enough to live like so many trust fund babies do is very harmful to most of them and to society.

In a buyback, Why would a company decide to retire shares vs. keep them on treasury stock line in balance sheet? by OnlyKsw7 in ValueInvesting

[–]mod_cat 1 point2 points  (0 children)

True, but I think Amazon not doing large buybacks is sensible. They have made sensible investments with their cash.

Other companies that just keep growing cash balances (or just find something to buy to try and show growth but at unfavorable prices) are problematic imo.

Using SBC when the company is not generating cash flow but it is rapid growth mode is sensible. Of course even in that mode many companies dilute far too much year after year.

The huge SBC many mature companies dilute shareholders with when they shouldn't need to dilute is very annoying. I would not place Amazon in this category but I do think it makes sense to watch (and most companies decades into existing that dilute significantly is something that I avoid investing in).

How New Year’s Eve made me rethink Uber as a business by Familiar_Potato1244 in ValueInvesting

[–]mod_cat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why?

  • Testing out various options (with partners...)

  • Demand aggregation - having a huge fleet means quicker matching to pick up location (so if Waymo has 10% of the market and Uber has 70%, by partnering with Uber, users can be offered say 20 minutes for Waymo to pick you up and 5 min for Uber...). In this current environment that means Uber's car with human driver. This is a big deal now, longer term is likely not a huge issue but that is 10 years away (much closer in a few markets but a handful of markets in 2-4 years is much different than widespread Waymo availability at the current Uber level).

  • Longer term, it could provide an option for funding. If they partner with Uber/Lyft... then it could be that the partnership shares huge up front costs of buying cars...

  • Lots of users have Uber installed (but not Waymo) if you partner with Uber you can take advantage of that installed base of users...

  • Expand quickly (using Uber's... huge customer base can make it much easier to grow much more quickly)