I was part of a smaller acquisition Splunk made. My existing options at the original company were worthless at the time the deal closed. Instead Splunk and our management agreed to pay us out in cash that was lower than the value of what Splunk paid. In turn Splunk slapped on the golden handcuffs for those they wanted to keep and bumped up our salaries and threw the standard four year vesting RSUs at us with everyone starting at day 0. The rumor was our founder took the lion's share of cash on acquisition. Once I was in Splunk it was, unfortunately, what I feared. Beyond a lot of mediocre mid-level management and everyone calling themselves rockstars I asked about how a specific prior acquisition had gone. Most Splunkers were pretty candid about how poorly that had gone (it was their UBA acquisition, I was part of the SOAR acquisition). I saw the writing on the wall within a few months and left money on the table. It just wasn't worth it to me to stick around as I had been in a similar size Valley security company that was equally as bad.
It's unfortunate this is what the landscape has become. On one hand I'm happy for the SignalFX founders to have made it and hit pay dirt. But everyone else... Yeah, they're all going to get swindled on the deal. Sure you'll make some money but not nearly as much as a select few and even then there's a good chance anyone who tries out Splunk internally runs into the same wall myself and a bunch of my peers did. Splunk, Palo Alto Networks, IBM... They're all are done innovating. These companies buy relevancy and then are proud of their accompliments in changing the world. Or that's what they tell their prospects, customers and themselves. So much great technology and brain power are getting locked up in these non-R&D companies who are at a stage of run rate revenue but still think they're a startup that will continue to pull 50% growth YoY. It's absurd.
Splunk isn't good at acquisitions. I've seen it first hand. I'd never go back there willingly. I hope the SignalFX crew ends up better. But at the end of the day you're working at Splunk.
Well you got RSUs at Splunk + salary bump which is like ok deal?
Granted - your payout at acquisition didn’t work to your expectations - and it’s typical in SV - but after dust settled you been offered something not that bad in a company that is really not a lagger after all...
Umm, I've never worked in a startup, but if I do, a huge motivation would be make money. Risk is startup failing, not it getting acquired for good money. In the end, if all I'm getting is standard RSUs and salary bump, I might as well will join the established company at first place. I understand some people really do love to work for startups, but I think many don't and regardless potential to make money much more than standard job in future is always a motivation.
On average, the problem with being an employee in a startup is that actually it is easy to over-value your shares/options. However, there are still lots of cash-out stories as well, where the employee has made nice bonus on top. But to me it seems that for each cash-out story, there is like 9 or 10 stories where the options/shares have turned out to be worthless.
The problem with the "salary bump" is that it is usually a "salary leveling". You were slightly underpaid because you're at a startup so the bump is to a market rate. Or, even if you were at a market rate, you may have been with the startup long enough that you could get that bump just by leaving. So in the end they're not offering you anything you couldn't get by going to many other employers.
So it's not bad per say, but it's not valuable at all. Even though it's being sold to you as such.
Someone took a high risk working at a small startup. That risk should be rewarded with something OTHER than a "nice" job offer, which you can get in 1-2 month of interviews anyway.
> Splunk isn't good at acquisitions. I've seen it first hand. I'd never go back there willingly. I hope the SignalFX crew ends up better. But at the end of the day you're working at Splunk.
Is there some company that is provably good at acquisations? To my understanding they are always very risky and maybe more than 50% end up failing somehow.
That's a pretty big jump. In fairness I will say the salary was competitive to the company I left for the startup. That being said I had more RSUs that were already in flight to vest at the company I had left. This is how I negotiated higher options at the startup. The cash payout I was given didn't make up for what was lost moving to the startup and taking a pay cut.
That being said the culture at that startup was the best I've experienced. The people and the product were fantastic. So if I were to do it over again would I have made the same choice? I'm not sure and that caution purely comes from the culture and management of Splunk.
It's unfortunate this is what the landscape has become. On one hand I'm happy for the SignalFX founders to have made it and hit pay dirt. But everyone else... Yeah, they're all going to get swindled on the deal. Sure you'll make some money but not nearly as much as a select few and even then there's a good chance anyone who tries out Splunk internally runs into the same wall myself and a bunch of my peers did. Splunk, Palo Alto Networks, IBM... They're all are done innovating. These companies buy relevancy and then are proud of their accompliments in changing the world. Or that's what they tell their prospects, customers and themselves. So much great technology and brain power are getting locked up in these non-R&D companies who are at a stage of run rate revenue but still think they're a startup that will continue to pull 50% growth YoY. It's absurd.
Splunk isn't good at acquisitions. I've seen it first hand. I'd never go back there willingly. I hope the SignalFX crew ends up better. But at the end of the day you're working at Splunk.