Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

The $38m one likely has to do with share count or funds.

Often shares will be split %-wise between two or more funds. I.e. 22.5% goes to XYZ Fund 1, 85.5% goes to XYZ Fund 2. These % can be super specific and make it so wires go down to the cent.



sort by: page size:

Usually it's more like %10 of vested earnings, which ends up being something like %2.5-%5 of their stock.

It's 10% which gets shared 5% & 5% between the platform and the non for profit that is the custodian of the funds (and provides compliance, tax filing, 1099s,etc)

Exactly. ETFs, Index Funds, etc.

Besides, how did they get 2/3 anyways? If I make 7% and 2% goes to someone else, I'm still left with 5%. 5% > 2%. So how does that 2% translate into 66.7%?


Fixed percent of company income put into a shared fund.

It's 5% on the amount less than $500k, and 10% on the amount from $500k up to $1m.

I'm still learning all of these investment terms.

If the 146M is post-money, then they own (60/146M)%? If it's pre-money, (60/(60+146M))%?


Great point. In dollar terms within the respective vesting years, 10%/20%/30%/40% might look something like 5k/100k/200k/500k, which is extremely back loaded (and could help explain the Zynga 'scandal').

Are they doing it as an instant jump past the fist 1mill, or more like bracketing, so that your first $1m is at 15% and anything on top of that is at 30%? I think that would make much more sense.

Example: 100k raised at 2M cap: that's a ratio of 0.1:2, ie 0.05:1

Is this typical?


367k is 9% off the 400k target. 9% is a lot.

Could be participating preferred, accumulating dividends, etc. There's a lot more to it than straight %.

Percentage = [(56/Capital) + 0.13%]

56 = cost to employer

Capital = how much the employer has in the 401k

0.13% = average fund fee

So if Capital = 200k

Percentage = [56/200k + 0.13%] = 0.028% + 0.13% = 0.16%

My guess is that they're focusing on new plans, not allowing rollover from previous plans and not allowing employees to keep the plan after they leave the company. In this situation they're able to have mostly savers with low or very low balances, and they charge on average higher fees than Vanguard and others.


Interesting, I just took it at face value. I wonder what the % split is.

Then factor that in as well. The divide between $60K/25% and $40K/5% will still be substantial.

18k/300k == 0.06, so a 6% cut in corp.

> That 2% is what you'd get charged by ANYONE with the skill and operations to manage that level of money.

Also not strictly true. Some of the large funds with (confidence in their ability to perform|managing enough money to not care about massive performance anymore) operate on 1/20 rather than 2/20.


Interesting. 6.6% seems like a pretty insignificant investment. Does anybody have any idea what 6.6% could really get them?

Sorry, trying to reconcile the comments.

LifeOfPi mentioned the short float to = 7%. Chollida1 mentioned the 7% figure was using 273mil shares as a base.

So wouldn't the total shorted shares equal 19mil? (19mil = 273mil X 7%). However, Chollidal mentioned in the first post that 27mil shares are shorted. Trying to figure out how to bridge the gap between 19mil and 27mil...

PS. Not trying to nit-pick. The comments are very useful. Maybe I'm missing something....


0.98^50 is 36.4% yes, but it's ignoring potential growth of the invested capital
next

Legal | privacy