[HN Gopher] Robinhood lays off 23% of staff ___________________________________________________________________ Robinhood lays off 23% of staff Author : tempsy Score : 225 points Date : 2022-08-02 20:11 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.wsj.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.wsj.com) | metadat wrote: | Un-paywalled: https://archive.ph/wsimy | xyst wrote: | That's a significant RIF | yuan43 wrote: | Why not cut pay across the board? | | I know this is not the cultural norm, but I am curious how long | this norm can persist. | | Without the ability to cut pay, layoffs are the only option for | companies burning cash and losing altitude. That locks pay | increases at the same inflated point that the bubble supported | but which reality does not. | | To go one step further, is there a single advanced economy in | which pay cuts, rather than layoffs, are the norm? | this_user wrote: | Because then you'd still have more people than you need, except | now everyone is poorly motivated, and your best people will | just leave. | | Germany does actually have a model called "Kurzarbeit" | (literally "short work") to reduce hours across the board while | some of the wage losses are being offset by payment from the | unemployment insurance system. The idea is to avoid layoffs | during times of recession etc. which would allow the companies | to bounce back more quickly once the situation has picked up | again. | yuan43 wrote: | > ... your best people will just leave. | | Where is the evidence for this? | | I get that it seems like what would happen, but where are the | cases proving that's what happened? Especially in an economy | shedding jobs, there may not be many other places to go. | | Also, studies seem to find that money doesn't motivate people | to perform at a higher level. | | https://hbr.org/2013/04/does-money-really-affect-motiv | nrmitchi wrote: | The best people (the ones you really don't want to lose) | will always find a place to go. | gruez wrote: | >Also, studies seem to find that money doesn't motivate | people to perform at a higher level. | | What that really means is that if you're paying $200k now, | bumping to $250k isn't going to make your workers more | productive. However, if you're paying $200k now and you cut | the pay to $180k, and your competitors are offering $230k, | your best performers are still going to jump ship. | emidln wrote: | The top talent can jump jobs on a whim in major tech hubs. | The only senior programmers I know in Chicago that have | been unemployed or underemployed for longer than a few | weeks in the past decade were of their own volition. Maybe | this is just my bubble and maybe it's just Chicago, but I | doubt both of those. | enticingturtle wrote: | Short answer: your best employees will leave | daenz wrote: | Exactly, why would a high performer want to subsidize the | lower performers with their own salary? Just go somewhere | that will continue to pay top market rate. | [deleted] | ghaff wrote: | It can work to some degree especially at smaller companies | where cash flow matters a lot. | | I experienced this in the dot-com collapse but probably ripping | off the bandaid is a better approach in many circumstances | especially when cash flow isn't the driver. | babypuncher wrote: | With the job market still being as strong as it is, cutting pay | like that would be a disaster. | | If my employer told me they were cutting my pay by 20% one | morning I would already be out doing interviews by the | afternoon. | | With layoffs you at least control what talent you are giving up | in exchange for a smaller payroll. With across the board salary | reduction, your most talented employees will get up and leave | and the people who remain will be demoralized and poorly | motivated. | drc500free wrote: | I worked at a startup that tried that. Within 4 months, a good | chunk of the best tech people were gone. Within 12 months they | had gone under. | | Maybe for an economy-wide recession where your workers have no | other options. But if it's just startup risk that are making | you founder, you're basically guaranteeing a death spiral. | There is some chance if you make it a fixed-term paycut with a | payback with interest, but you better have a real cult leader | as CEO to get people onboard with something complicated instead | of just getting a job at Google. | smm11 wrote: | Good. Problem is, fewer of those vultures means even bigger one | survive. Just can't win. | datalopers wrote: | Biggest mark of utter management failure is making too small a | layoff in April (9%) and needing to do another round today. | | Combined that's a 30% headcount reduction since Q1-2022 | ab_testing wrote: | Somehow I feel that all these VC backed firms just add employees | for the sake of adding employees. | | I use Tastyworks - another free online brokerage that it almost | at feature parity with Robinhood. They have stocks, options, | futures and even some selective crypto. They also make money | using PFOF just like Robinhood. | | However on Linkedin, their employee count is less than 100 (99 to | be precise) On the other hand, Robinhood was at almost 4000 | employees at the start of the year. I think they still have about | 80% more employees than where they need to be. | [deleted] | dan-robertson wrote: | Isn't Robinhood public rather than VC-backed? | niyazpk wrote: | Sure, but also, none of my (investing) friends use Tastyworks, | and almost all of them are using RH as their primary investing | platform! | | Companies in hyper-growth stages may hire/fire differently than | others. | xoxodave wrote: | Tastyworks was founded by the founders, CTO, and CFO of | Thinkorswim. I worked on thinkorswim institutional desk for | several years back in the mid-2000s. Not great brand | recognition but a company built for traders by traders. | outworlder wrote: | > as their primary investing platform | | :%s/investing/speculation/g | | Very few people use RH as 'investing'. Those will be on | boring brokers like Vanguard. | | I have a Tastyworks account too - the fills are way better | than Robinhood's. As expected, since they charge some amount | per trade. But that means that the "free" platform will | definitely have more users, just because it's supposedly free | (even though you pay for it in the fills, and get | frontrunning trades) | kasey_junk wrote: | How are you quantifying that the fills are better? | | I worked professionally on this problem a while ago and it | was very hard to do even with full depth feeds direct from | the exchanges. | sitzkrieg wrote: | price and execution time? how much slip or price | improvement on limits? or god forbid the casual retail | market orders fill vs nbbo and pools at exec | kasey_junk wrote: | If you are seeing a venue not meeting nbbo you have a | whistleblower suit to make which have been quite | lucrative. | | When I was doing this for work the issues we ran into | came down to a) making the orders hit the tape close | enough to ensure similar priority b) the size of the | orders changing execution depending on venue c) | differences in performance per symbol. | | This was in a place that was sending a fair amount of | orders in. Even then given the above finding statistical | relevance was hard. | 0x457 wrote: | I don't know the situation now, but both used to sell | their order flow to the same place. I used both and fills | for pretty much the same. However, I used tasty platform | to set up options and then execute them on RH most of the | time. | bostonpete wrote: | Wow, TIL you can use sed syntax in vi. I'm not a heavy vi | user but that's still a handy trick. :-) | gruez wrote: | >just because it's supposedly free (even though you pay for | it in the fills, and get frontrunning trades) | | Can you provide a source for this? Citadel (one of the | companies robinhood sells order flow to) claims in | regulatory filings[1] that the overwhelming majority of | orders are executed at market price or better, and that | they on average _save_ traders money. | | [1] https://s3.amazonaws.com/citadel-wordpress-prd101/wp- | content... | [deleted] | daoist_shaman wrote: | This is a red flag. | | Robinhood is struggling for capital, so I wouldn't trust them | with my cash whatsoever. | | Not that anyone has trusted them for a while, but yeah. | gruez wrote: | >Robinhood is struggling for capital, so I wouldn't trust them | with my cash whatsoever. | | Why not? You're protected by SIPC for up to $500k (for | securities) and $250k (for cash). | xyst wrote: | Aren't they selling the order flow of retail traders? | Protected or not. I'm not trusting them. | | "Robinhood" my ass | gruez wrote: | >Aren't they selling the order flow of retail traders? | | ...and getting price improvements. See: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32325223. I don't see | the issue here. | sitzkrieg wrote: | other brokers do too.. | CameronNemo wrote: | You actually want to have to rely on insurance? I would hope | that my brokerage can at least stay solvent ffs. | xyst wrote: | agreed - had $50K in investments (I admit, it's small fish). | Transferred that to another brokerage following the GME sell | button fiasco. Although in retrospect, I probably should have | switched sooner than that | soneca wrote: | > _"In his message Tuesday, Mr. Tenev said the new round of | changes at the company are particularly concentrated in its | operations, marketing and program management departments."_ | | People here on HN often say how bad is to be an engineer in a | non-tech company. It seems that it's much worse to be a non- | engineer in a tech company. | atlasunshrugged wrote: | As a nontechnical person, I can say I don't blame co's for | cutting these roles first. Marketing, HR, program management, | etc. are great at creating additional layers and busywork that | makes it seem like they're absolutely critical to a company | functioning. I was mostly in sales/bd and what I did love about | the job was that there were pretty objective criteria to look | at to see performance- how many partnerships or deals were in | the pipeline, how many did you close, what dollar value, what | was the csat on closed deals, etc. | Dma54rhs wrote: | Of course it is. People, especially during this golden bull run | of decade in tech, are one of the most privileged people out | there. | twblalock wrote: | In general the non-engineers at tech companies get treated | pretty well and I don't think they are more likely to get laid | off than they are at other companies. They also generally get | the same kind of RSUs/options/stock comp as anyone else at the | company: those are not normally restricted to engineers, | although engineers often get more compensation than others. | | Marketing, advertising and sales people are especially | vulnerable at any company: if the company expects consumer | confidence and purchases to decline, those are some of the | first roles that get cut anywhere. | nativespecies wrote: | We honestly aren't treated better, and as you point out, are | usually the first out the door. This has been my experience | as a marketer over the last 16+ years. So, so many of my | compatriots let go in these lean times (and often not | backfilled), leaving those left behind to do 2-3X more work | and get the ol "you're lucky to have a job!" speech. I've | been laid off twice in my career, despite being considered a | high-performer, once mid-way through Covid, and am staring | down the barrel of another looming layoff. Honestly, being a | marketer sucks but I don't know what else to do at this | point. | CSMastermind wrote: | Same thing I would say. | | In my view the difference between a tech company and a non-tech | company is what percentage of the company's value is stored in | the intellectual property rights of their software. The higher | that number the more of a 'tech' company you are. | | In non-tech companies software engineering is a cost center and | at tech companies things like operations are cost centers. In | both cases you need them for the business to function but they | don't deliver lasting business value on their own so you look | to minimize costs. | | Many non-tech roles have the problem of being easily | replaceable while many tech role have the problem of being | expensive. | papandada wrote: | Some company will always need a person who can actually make | things work, definitely. | tmpz22 wrote: | * unmute microphone | | * "thats bull shit you took 800m in compensation last year" | | * get fired without severance | | * feel really good | rootusrootus wrote: | That's brutal. We just laid off a couple hundred people last | week, only five from our department (which is 190 people) but two | of them were from one of my teams. Demoralizing, and in the case | of that team, absolutely devastating to productivity in the short | term. | | Cutting almost 1 in 4 employees is beyond anything I can imagine. | I think I'd feel like I was rearranging deck chairs if I survived | the cut and stuck around. I'd be putting out my resume right now. | papito wrote: | ".. ambitious staffing trajectory". | | Read: We were spending money on new hires like a drunken | socialist sailor to show "growth" to keep the bubble going and | sucking in even more VC money. My bad. | | Tired - burn rate, wired - hiring rate. | hmryehbut wrote: | danwee wrote: | > As CEO, I approved and took responsibility for our ambitious | staffing trajectory--this is on me | | So, find a decent replacement for CEO. | radicaldreamer wrote: | It's just a turn of phrase... usually "it's on me" just means | I've acknowledged what you might be thinking and I'm going to | continue doing whatever I want. | yodsanklai wrote: | ... and at the same time trying to show they're a great | because capable of acknowledging errors. | throwawaysleep wrote: | Employment is a transitory thing. Remember this the next time you | spend your life energy fixing something you could get away with | letting fail. | chadlavi wrote: | They were still in business? | MrMan wrote: | its worse than any other broker, so there is no reason for it to | survive | 88840-8855 wrote: | What they write: | | "As CEO, I approved and took responsibility for our ambitious | staffing trajectory - this is on me. " | | What he totally forgot to mention: | | "I also take a pay cut to reduce the opex burden on the company | and to retain as many FTE as possible" | civilized wrote: | _swinging the ax_ I take full responsibility for this | function_seven wrote: | This axe is heavy, and the destruction wrought by it saddens | me. I need to be compensated for this. | analyst74 wrote: | "One who passes the sentence should swing the sword" | | If it's good enough for a lord, must be good for the CEO. | newfonewhodis wrote: | "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to | make" | timack wrote: | "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to | make," - Lord Farquaad | ChuckNorris89 wrote: | Silicon Valley (the satire TV show) already covered this exact | scenario. Mike Judge is a brilliant writer. | | https://youtu.be/u48vYSLvKNQ?t=17 | renewiltord wrote: | His salary is like $300k and the stock options he was granted | as the pandemic growth hit break even at some $300/share (it's | $9/share right now). | jeffbee wrote: | In the past year he sold $55 million of shares. Let's don't | be too credulous about cries of poverty. | renewiltord wrote: | Sure but that's not opex (the context of this thread). | That's stuff he has by virtue of founding the company. | saalweachter wrote: | Eh, does he deserve $55M for founding a f(l)ailing | company? If he wasn't a founder, would you say "No, never | mind the $55M he pulled out of the company last year, | last year everything was fine. The massive cash shortfall | the company is experiencing today has nothing to do with | those $55M that are no longer in the company's coffers."? | renewiltord wrote: | Mate, ultimately the point is that if you sell $55 m of | your stock in a company you're not taking money out of | the company. That stuff ceased to be owned by the company | when those shares (or derivatives that control them) were | granted (way before this point). | idontpost wrote: | > The massive cash shortfall the company is experiencing | today has nothing to do with those $55M that are no | longer in the company's coffers. | | Do you not understand how stock sales work? | | The $55M didn't come from company coffers. It came from | pension funds, hedge funds, and retail investors on the | other side of the sale. | Arcuru wrote: | Elsewhere in the thread, others mention he was paid 800 | million in stock awards in 2021. Do you have some other | supporting info? | | The 800 million number seems to be better supported via a | quick search - https://www.execpay.org/executive/vladimir- | tenev-42307/r-186... | renewiltord wrote: | Page 68 and on of the Schedule 14A filed with the SEC, | published this May. The $300 I was referencing was the top | price target of the PSUs that make up his comp. | redredrobot wrote: | Are you complaining that when they cut their pay from 400k to | 32k that wasn't enough? Or are you complaining that they didn't | cut their 32k salaries down further? | robertlagrant wrote: | Which people did that? | tclancy wrote: | Reddit will be telling me this split is just like a dividend too. | CodeSgt wrote: | "While employees from all functions will be impacted, the changes | are particularly concentrated in our operations, marketing, and | program management functions." | rossdavidh wrote: | "Last year, we staffed many of our operations functions under the | assumption that the heightened retail engagement we had been | seeing with the stock and crypto markets in the COVID era would | persist into 2022..." | | We are now at the point when we will find out which of the | changes to behavior (financial and otherwise) that came about | with the onset of the covid-19 pandemic are going to be lasting, | and which are not. I do not claim to be able to predict which | ones (if any) will last, but I can confidently say that Robinhood | is not the only one to have been surprised by changes which they | thought would "stick", going back to pre-covid norms. | t_mann wrote: | Just saying, the ones who might end up being surprised are | those who think that the crazy days of 20/21 are definitely | over. For all we know, it's just summer now. Not that I don't | dread further lockdowns or even necessarily expect them, but I | have them on my list of possible scenarios. | 14 wrote: | Oh we will be getting locked down again in the fall I am sure | of that. Canada didn't upgrade it's definition of fully | vaccinated for no reason. Come fall those "fully vaccinated" | will be allowed to enter restaurants and work while those who | oppose further shots will be told stay home | twblalock wrote: | A lot of Robin Hood's growth in particular was driven by people | gambling their stimulus money because they didn't need it to | make ends meet, and by the Fed juicing the markets with low | rates for far too long. It was a perfect storm of stupidity. | | Personally I'm glad that some sanity is returning to investing, | and we are still a long way from getting back to normal. | civilized wrote: | It should have been obvious to anyone that people would do less | day trading once they had _anything_ better to do. | alecbz wrote: | Hindsight's 20/20? Why would we feel sure that people | wouldn't keep up with habits they picked up during COVID? | That seems like it could have been similarly likely to me -- | someone picks up day trading, gets hooked, and now it's a | regular habit. | thaumasiotes wrote: | Well, you'd ask the question "why weren't they doing it | before?". If the answer is "they didn't know about it", you | might expect them to keep doing it. But not otherwise. | | Day trading has had a lot of popular awareness for a long | time. | civilized wrote: | Day trading has all the meaning and fulfillment of | cigarette smoking and slot machines, but with none of the | addictive chemicals or flashing lights. So it's not | surprising that people didn't hold onto the habit once | there were better alternatives. | alecbz wrote: | Even if you know something exists, you might just have | never tried it for some reason until something causes you | to, at which point you might realize you enjoy it. | | E.g., I got a bike over COVID, found I liked biking a | lot, and have been doing it a lot more now. | ghaff wrote: | And once even throwing darts to pick stocks stopped producing | big gains. | | The same thing basically happened in the run-up to dot-bomb. | It was really easy to make book with day-trading in 1999 or | so. See also crypto. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Or when making money became harder. | | Amazing the number of people I personally know who took 1 | year of day trading to be the "norm" and made big life | decisions based on their results. From quitting good jobs to | buying houses they can't afford, all because they made big | money in 2021 and thought they could keep repeating it every | year. | georgeecollins wrote: | This happened in 1998-1999 too. People got online trading | accounts, did great and then decided to try to invest for a | living. | | You should not take investment advice from people who have | been doing it less than a decade. It takes time to sort out | the lucky from the smart. | smsm42 wrote: | Unless you're going to do it for living and really invest | hard into educating yourself, I don't think you should | also take the investment advice from people who have been | doing it for more than a decade, unless the advice is | "buy index funds and HODL" (I maybe exaggerate a bit, but | boiled down to the essence that'd be it). For a common | person that doesn't plan to make a career out of it and | spend a lot of time honing one's skills, daytrading is | rarely going to pay off, IMHO. You can do it for fun, | there are more expensive hobbies probably, but as a means | to support yourself in the old age... well, you might get | lucky. Or not. | mumblemumble wrote: | I would even argue that a decade isn't necessarily enough | time. The decade in question might have been the 1990s. | t_mann wrote: | Or the 2010's. | mumblemumble wrote: | To any one person, sure. But, as the saying goes, "None of us | is as dumb as all of us." | | Once you start move into the realm of group decisionmaking | based on hypothetical future demand for | $OUR_WORLD_CHANGING_PRODUCT, positivity culture starts to | take over. Plenty of people in the room where the decision is | made may be thinking, "But what if this is a passing fad and | people don't really love our product in any sort of durable | way," but nobody wants to be the one to actually say it. | | I would even go so far as to say that those whose temperament | would allow them to say something like that out loud in the | boardroom generally don't get promoted into the kinds of | positions that get you invited to boardroom meetings. | mgfist wrote: | All of this has already happened. Just look at the stocks of | all the pandemic companies. Peleton, Teledoc, Zoom, Docusign | and on and on. Pretty much all down 80%+ from their highs. | roughly wrote: | If anyone had any notion that the markets were efficient or | rational in any way regarding the actual underlying value of | the companies they purport to represent, I certainly hope | that notion didn't survive the pandemic - I'm not sure what | world stocks were pricing in over the last two years, but it | didn't pass even a cursory smell test. | adam_arthur wrote: | It's rational on the predication of completely absurd | stories about growth trajectories. | | It's what happens when a bunch of dumb money comes into the | market | throwaway_4ever wrote: | It's still going on. | | Nikola, a vaporware company with absolutely 0 revenues | burning $600m / year, is still "worth" $3b. | | HKD, a vaporware company, is being pump and dumped and is | now "worth" $150b+, the size of Bank of America, despite | being 50 employees with nothing of value. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/wegalp/hkd | _... | skrtskrt wrote: | Any institution that invested in "home workout" stuff | deserves to lose every dollar they put in, how could you not | see that coming. | alecbz wrote: | Would you say the same about working from home generally, | which seems to have more staying power (even if we are | seeing some return to office)? | | It seems not-crazy to me that someone would have thought | that WFH was going to stick around post-COVID and thus also | make people want to keep being able to work out from home. | bushbaba wrote: | There prior earnings had substantial revenue from crypto. | That's mostly dried up. Then you've got the GME reputation hit. | | Meanwhile fidelity who avoided crypto and has a great | reputation saw & continues to see growth | [deleted] | aaaaaaaaata wrote: | They didn't avoid cryptocurrency..they've been mining. BTC | offerings in friendly nations (Canada). | dcolkitt wrote: | What? Fidelity has a huge digital assets division and | literally added Bitcoin as a 401(k) option | onlyfortoday2 wrote: | llaolleh wrote: | That's a lot of staff - it means 1/5th of your coworkers got laid | off... | | I'm very bearish on Robinhood - I don't know if they have enough | of a moat to defend themselves from other free stock trading | apps. People have forgiven so many outages. The Gamestop saga was | the straw that broke the camel's back for many. | Bluecobra wrote: | Not to mention they are screwed if congress passes legislation | to ban selling order flow to firms like Citidel. | tempsy wrote: | stjohnswarts wrote: | Right sizing not layoffs | paxys wrote: | > As CEO, I approved and took responsibility for our ambitious | staffing trajectory--this is on me | | Reminder that Vlad Tenev received $800M in compensation in 2021. | In the same year the company made terrible bets on crypto and | banking, took an irreversible reputation hit among its core user | base because of the GME fiasco, had multiple user data breaches, | was subject to several investigations and was fined hundreds of | millions by the SEC and other regulatory bodies, and saw its | share price drop by 90%. | | At this point "taking responsibility" would mean resigning and | letting someone more competent fix his messes. | [deleted] | kaczordon wrote: | No one's forcing those employees to stay working there. If he's | that bad people can just leave and work for a company that they | like. | pcurve wrote: | Yep, talk is cheap. Of course he's responsible, whether he | admits it or not. | | If not willing to step down, then give up pay. | Spivak wrote: | Good lord, if I resigned every time I caused a production | issue my resume length would triple. | | You are allowed to admit you made a mistake without publicly | self flagellating. This is some straight puritanical shit. | paxys wrote: | Does your company also do mass layoffs whenever you cause a | production issue? | Spivak wrote: | The impact doesn't matter, the magnitude of the mistake | does. | | * If I take all reasonable precautions and bad thing | still happens -- not a fuckup. | | * If try my best but make an honest mistake like being | forgetful -- minor fuckup. | | * If I try my best but don't know something crucial -- | minor fuckup. If I am paid to be an expert on that thing | -- major fuckup. | | * If I deliberately choose to forego necessary | precautions because that's effort it'll be fine -- major | fuckup or legal trouble depending on the field. | | * If I purposely cause bad thing to happen -- legal | trouble. | | * If I choose to take a calculated risk in good faith | after getting the advice of my board and my advisors and | bad thing happens -- not even a fuckup. | | How bad the bad thing is doesn't matter except at the | margins "no harm done" or actual injury. Downsizing a | company does not meet that bar. | | Being in a leadership position shouldn't be a job of | calling coins in the air and betting your job you get it | right. | abirch wrote: | How many lives were impacted significantly by your | production error? | VoodooJuJu wrote: | The beauty of corporatism - unlimited upside and no downside. | V__ wrote: | If you crash a company against the wall resulting in such a | disaster and having to cut so much staff, resigning isn't | enough. CEO's should have to pay back big parts of their | compensation. | _jal wrote: | The way you know that would never happen is that he said he | "takes responsibility". | | I'm serious. If there were any risk at all that he might lose | a cent, he would never admit anything in a way that could be | referenced by a lawyer. | a-dub wrote: | executives should be compensated for the performance of the | company in the future, not the current quarter or year. this | is the board's fault for failing to set effective incentives. | lupire wrote: | gruez wrote: | Isn't that what a vesting period is supposed to enforce? | guntars wrote: | Exactly, there should be a multi-year lockout period where | the CEOs cannot sell their stock. If the potential hires | don't like it, well, cry me a river. Plenty of people would | still take the job, especially if they are interested in | building a long-term company. | Phlarp wrote: | If the CEO picks the board, and packs it full of his other | CEO friends, who all have him sit on their boards too, and | everyone rubber stamps each others compensation packages; | isn't this circular blame game awfully beneficial to all of | the CEOs at the expense of all the non-CEOs? | somehnacct3757 wrote: | The Shopify layoff also contained this phrasing. Shows how | tone-deaf these CEOs are. | | Shopify's version: | | > Ultimately, placing this bet was my call to make and I got | this wrong. Now, we have to adjust. As a consequence, we have | to say goodbye to some of you today. | prh8 wrote: | I commented about this when it happened and was met with | vitriol. Nice to see people here have some sense. | cjrp wrote: | Taking responsibility would mean returning a significant | portion of that compensation. | systemvoltage wrote: | Wait, shouldn't this be returned back to whom the money | belonged (investors)? | munk-a wrote: | Investment comes with risk - that's why you can make money | at it. I think it's fair to say if this business is | struggling it'd be more equitable to share the excess | compensation with rank and file employees that are being | deprived of their livelihood but unfortunately they likely | have no "right" to that compensation with how various | employee contracts are structured. It's usually the case in | situations like this that the CEO getting a golden | parachute is less expensive to the company than trying to | get out of paying them. Companies, of course, would prefer | a world in which no one had to be paid so all this thread | is sort of a socialist pipedream where the havenots might | actually get treated fairly since if the money wasn't going | to the CEO it'd likely end up straight back in the pockets | of investors. | systemvoltage wrote: | All these people had salaries in excess of $180k I | presume + stock compensation. Sorry, but they do not fall | in the category of people that were exploited. | | I firmly believe in at will employment. | | In this case, the CEO exploited the investors, whether it | is VC firms, institutional or private investors by making | an error in the judgement of hiring needs. Of course | there is a risk in investment, but when CEO's make major | mistakes while paying themselves $800M in compensation; | investors should seek relief. | paxys wrote: | Investment is always a gamble. Employment shouldn't be. | munk-a wrote: | There are talks of "late stage capitalism" all over the place - | I think CEO compensation is one of the biggest hallmarks of it. | Capitalism is supposed to naturally reward value creation to | incentivize further value creation - somehow we've found | ourselves in a situation where folks on the bottom of the | pyramid aren't going to get incentivized for efficient labour | no matter how much value they create - while folks at the top | will be gloriously celebrated for even the most abject | failures. | | Most people are doing their best to be productive and most of | their managers are trying to reward these efforts with | recognition beyond a "thanks" but it becomes more difficult to | do when we have an insane wealth sink at the top of our | economy. | elihu wrote: | My own theory is that executive compensation serves a purpose | that generally isn't said out loud. Usually compensation | comes mostly in the form of stock, and the real reason for | the large amounts is to reassure investors that if the | executive finds him or herself in a situation where they have | to make a choice between what's good for employees or what's | good for shareholders, they'll be strongly incentivized to | choose the latter. | | It follows that if a CEO were to refuse stock compensation | they'd be at risk of being fired by the board of directors, | because owning stock is an unspoken qualification for the | job. | Spivak wrote: | > owning stock | | And not cashing it out. | kaczordon wrote: | Vlad created an app and created value for lots of people. | People chose to give him money in the form of investment for | his company. I'd say plenty of people are motivated to become | founders and create value. Most people just aren't good at it | or prefer a comfy and safe life. Nothing wrong with that | either but don't expect the same payout as someone who worked | harder than you. | munk-a wrote: | This really just seems like more a comment on how you | relatively value networking compared to skills acquisition. | Being a technical worker instead of a manager isn't a flaw | - I am happy to continue delivering technical product to my | company and I definitely deliver significant value. | | I don't disagree that starting a company comes with risks | and a personal investment that warrants increased | compensation - but right now CEOs in the US make an average | of 670x their employees... that is _extreme_. | | I think the modern world has come to view low level | employees as replaceable and thus the compensation is more | focused on market pricing instead of individual value | creation - but with CEOs that 670x is usually justified | with how important the decisions they are making are but | founders and CEOs are just as replaceable as anyone else. | tomrod wrote: | Ehhhh.. Economic rents and scarcity of talent with solid | networks still apply to execs as much as pro sports. | | You don't buy an exec because they are brilliant or hard | working, you buy them for their network and how much they can | grow the the business relative to compensation. At least in | theory. | jrochkind1 wrote: | I realize it's not something that happens, but I would say | "taking responsibility" would mean taking, oh, I dunno, $50M of | that $800M in compensation in 2021, and distributing it to | those laid off? | | (How the hell is your life different with $750M instead of | $800M anyway?) | gerdesj wrote: | It's the difference between having only one or even no | helipad on your floating gin palace or two. | nerdponx wrote: | The article said it was around 1000 employees. So cutting his | pay by $50m would mean $50k _per laid-off employee_. | | How as an investor or shareholder can you not look at this as | downright robbery? | eatonphil wrote: | Lots of execs take "only" $100ks of compensation in salary | and the rest in stock. | radicaldreamer wrote: | Steve Jobs famously took a $1 salary and everything else | was in stock. | bostonpete wrote: | That's not really true, at least not in the same way | being discussed above. Jobs already owned millions of | shares in Apple stock, so yes, he profited from the stock | but AFAIK that was only from the appreciation of existing | stock, not from new grants. | Phlarp wrote: | If nothing else, he also got unlimited personal use of | the company jet. | sianemo wrote: | He's perfectly capable of giving stock to these employees | as well. | wombat-man wrote: | Looking at Robinhood stock, it might be way less than | that now. But I get your point | gruez wrote: | Robinhood is a public company. There's no difference | between getting stock/RSU compared to getting paid in | cash and then using it to buy stocks. | 88913527 wrote: | It's simple to say we'd be more charitable if we had | incomes 1,000x or more our current annual compensation, | but I do genuinely wonder if I'd be different. Would I be | greedy, would I care about doing right to the laid off | employees-- it's hard to imagine how crossing that bridge | might change people. | sianemo wrote: | I'm not going to try to justify how I would act, or how | anyone else should act, were I to have a compensation | package putting me easily in the top 0.1% of society, but | we can collectively dispense with the notion that certain | types of compensation (i.e. stocks) must necessarily be | prohibitively harder for a CEO to give up than just | money. | leereeves wrote: | Is it charitable to accept responsibility for the | consequences of your mistakes, and compensate those | you've harmed? Or is it just common decency? | 88913527 wrote: | It's probably not that simple. Most chief executives | delegate the responsibility of hiring staff to others. | Sure, the buck stops with the executive, but ultimately | nobody can review every single operational decision at | scale. Maybe they hired for a world where the pandemic | didn't happen and the monetary supply didn't tighten, | then the world changed. | tmpz22 wrote: | The entire purpose of the C-suite is to stay on top of | macro level stuff, and its the boards purpose to make | sure the C-suite is doing it. They didn't do their job. | And they got rich not doing it. | NegativeLatency wrote: | "With great power comes great responsibility" | NegativeLatency wrote: | I think by example we can guess that you might act | exactly that way (since so many other people do) but IMO | the important thing is how do we as a society want people | to act (ITT it would not be how this person is acting). | | IMO we as a society should pass rules and laws to prevent | people from acting this way ie limits on compensation. | KMnO4 wrote: | Frustrating to see the incredibly common conflation of | equity and salary. Even though it's always correctly | suffixed with "compensation", people assume that means "a | bank account with 8 zeros". | tschwimmer wrote: | That's because it effectively is. I suggest you look into | pledged asset lines (and more broadly 'buy, borrow, | die'), which are even more tax advantaged than just | getting paid directly. Sure, there is some marginal cost | associated with borrowing against granted equity, but | it's almost certainly less than 10%. So yes, it is | accurate to assume that if an exec vets $x00 million | dollars of equity a year, they have a high percentage of | that available to spend on whatever consumption or | investment they desire. | NegativeLatency wrote: | Feels like you're arguing semantics, either way the CEO | is being made wealthy right? | | Probably still getting much more than they need to live | off of, so some of that should go to the people getting | let go. | PheonixPharts wrote: | It's even more bizarre/frustrating for someone, | especially in tech where many of our TC is largely RSUs, | not understand that wealth is almost never held in cash. | | When I was young (and poor) I also believed that being | rich meant having Scrooge McDuck piles of cash to swim | in. | | After my first big RSU payout I quickly realized that | nobody with more than a few 100k in assets keeps anything | close to the majority of them in cash. Savings accounts | are for the poor. Anyone, even in the every day | millionaire level, keeps most of their wealth in non-cash | investments, leaving only enough cash to cover crisis | situations. Especially with inflation this high, holding | cash is literally throwing money away. | | Nobody has a bank account with 8 zeros, except maybe | lottery winners that never learned the basics of asset | management. | paisawalla wrote: | Sure, go ahead and ask those laid off if they'd feel better | if they were given a nice grant of $HOOD, which was worth | about 500% more in 2021. | | The post-IPO 2021 price stabilized for a while around $50, so | $50M is about 1M shares. The article says about 1,000 people | were laid off, so if split equally that's 1,000 shares per | employee. Since then, the price has come down to about $9, so | it's a severance of $9,000 today. | | I would hope everyone getting laid off receives at least that | much. | decebalus1 wrote: | But how would that motivate the other CEOs or aspiring CEOs | to be better CEOs? /s | remflight wrote: | With $800M you can't keep up with the really successful | billionaires. You know, things like sports teams, bezos's | yacht etc. | manquer wrote: | The rich don't see it that way. At its core wealth | accumulation is a scoring contest so every penny counts for | those care. | | Also if you have all the material needs that is satisfied, | then you go after the rare hard to get high value exclusive | money drain this is human nature. | | For your specific example what that 50m might make difference | it maybe a bigger jet that flies further or a second jet for | the family or a yatch or a castle in Italy or penthouse in | New York. | | For you and me that may seem ridiculous and unnecessary, yet | we do the same thing too. | | There are many many parts of the world owning a car (or even | riding in one) eating three meals a day or eating out are | luxuries many don't see in their lifetimes. Yet we use do all | those things without second thought to people leaving on $1 a | day or less . | memish wrote: | Reminder that Vlad Tenev founded Robinhood, an incredibly | successful app that disrupted an industry and is still best in | class. There really is no replacement for a founder CEO. | adambyrtek wrote: | Would you say the same about Travis Kalanick and Adam | Neumann? | Phlarp wrote: | And Elizabeth Holmes | adam_arthur wrote: | Brokerage is such a competitive space, their valuation never | made any sense. And big money players would never use Robinhood | over schwab et all | ramesh31 wrote: | > And big money players would never use Robinhood over schwab | et all | | Their entire business model is PFOF [0]. That is, it's a huge | fucking scam against retail. | | [0] | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/paymentoforderflow.asp | jmyeet wrote: | > ... took an irreversible reputation hit among its core user | base because of the GME fiasco | | God I'm so sick of hearing this. It comes from people who | seriously don't know what happened. | | let me explain: RH had (and still has) a service that you can | trade immediately on signing up and sending funds rather than | waiting for them to clear. This mostly works out fine because | people buy different things and you have the underlying assets | as security so it tends to work out, meaning it's not a risk of | a huge loss. Put another way: the convenience of RH lending you | money (because that's actually what's happening) is | counterbalanced by the additional business they get. | | When GME popped off, they got a ton of sign ups to buy GME. | This wasn't people using their own money to buy GME. This was | RH lending you money to buy GME. And suddenly it didn't balance | out. RH actually had a huge long GME position effectively. They | actually borrowed a billion dollars to cover that and that was | insufficient. So they stopped lending money to buy GME to avoid | insolvency. | | Remember too that they are lending you money on the promise you | would fund the account. If people bought GME at $100 and it | dropped to $30, RH would be left holding the bag as a | significant percentage of people would simply avoid the loss by | not funding their accounts. RH may have recourse to pursue that | in court but that's going to get expensive and is a losing | option all around. | | That's literally all it was. | | Some people were so delusional about what was going to happen | with GME. They thought that since the open short interest | exceeded the stock actively traded, the shares were going to go | to infinity or something like that. That was never going to | happen. | prh8 wrote: | They also prevented trading by people who had long running, | funded accounts. It was a mess and it wasn't only GME. | 88913527 wrote: | The fact that other brokerages could handle the counterparty | risk with stronger financials than Robinhood (eg: by | continuing to permit securities purchases) does highlight | reputational risk in that you're clearly running an inferior | brokerage compared to the competition. Ordinary market | conditions wouldn't add visibility to this fact, but | unfortunately there was always the risk and the situation had | occurred. | NovemberWhiskey wrote: | Robinhood's executive compensation clawback policy just FYI: | | _In March 2021, our board of directors adopted a clawback | policy effective upon the closing of this offering. Under our | clawback policy, our board of directors may recover incentive | compensation from an executive officer in the event of (i) a | restatement of our financial statements or a material error in | the calculation of one or more performance-based measures used | to determine the amount of such compensation or (ii) the | executive officer's "detrimental conduct" (as defined in our | clawback policy) that results in an excess performance payout, | results in legal proceedings or causes us material financial or | reputational harm_ | | ref. | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1783879/000162828021... | sn_master wrote: | how much of that $800M was in stock vs cash? | arcticbull wrote: | The only thing that matters is how much he sold vs held. Cash | is cash no matter how derived. | remflight wrote: | I said the same thing. Taking responsibility doesn't mean "I | acknowledge that this is on me." Of course it is. How about | some accountability? How about getting your pay clawed back | etc? Just "taking responsibility" is lip service. | jonas21 wrote: | Are you talking about the ~$800M in stock-based compensation | described here [1]? | | That only vests if Robinhood stock hits price targets between | $120 and $300 per share, so I'd imagine Vlad has not received | it. | | [1] | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1783879/000178387922... | akomtu wrote: | "With big money comes big responsibility, so I took that | responsibility and I'm going to take more of it next year. As a | result of my increased responsibility, 25% of our staff will be | given new opportunities this year and 25% more will see even | more opportunities next year. Stay tuned." | BurningFrog wrote: | I read this as saying "This is not happening because _you_ did | a bad job, it 's because _I_ did a bad job ". | | An important thing to mention at a layoff. | lupire wrote: | rubyist5eva wrote: | If Vlad Tenev is accepting responsibility he should resign. What | a dumpster fire company. | fleddr wrote: | We live in such morally bankrupt times. You can just say "you | take responsibility" without actually taking responsibility at | all. Our expectations have become so low and we've become so | complacent that just the statement is enough. | | In similar vain, "we care about your mental health" as is the | common internal email from HR. No actual care is offered though. | Giving staff a day off is a tangible example of doing at least | something, but obviously no such thing happens. Once again the | difference between caring and not caring is zero. | | "We care about your privacy" except for the 20 years of prior | tracking where we didn't. And actually still don't as we annoy | and mislead you to keep doing it. | | A web of lies. Optics, zero substance. | yomkippur wrote: | Coinbase for instance... | xyst wrote: | This is where we balance it out with unions. Unions have | historically gotten us everything today that most people think | is just SOP. | | Limited work weeks (40 hrs). Monday thru Friday as business | days. Paid vacations. Family and medical leave. Breaks. Paid | holidays. Sick leave. | | It's a shame there's been a massive push from corporations | pushing anti-union propaganda. We have been complacent. | | We need unions to make our voice heard. Both in the mega corps | and local/state/federal governments. | tootie wrote: | I only object to the notion that this is a problem of these | times. It's human nature and always has been. | RSHEPP wrote: | Company I work for gives international Mental Health Day off, | October 10th. | elcomet wrote: | This is strange, people might need a day off for dealing with | their mental health on another day of the year | emanresu3 wrote: | The downturn has begun. | rvz wrote: | The whole market downturn begun months ago, since November as | predicted. [0] That was the exact time to run away. | | Many other small companies like Robinhood were one of the first | to start downsizing quicker, which really doesn't surprise me | since all the cheap money is now gone. | | But the actual winners are the C-level executives, the VCs and | any of the long term employees who cashed out. | | [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29508238 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-02 23:00 UTC)