“You’re nobody here at $10 million” - Oy!

[califdreamer]

Oh what the heck. I'll just throw something out and be totally provincial.

If I were in the position these people are in I'd sell the mansion in Hillsborough and buy a plenty nice enough home in the San Diego area for cash. IMO more economical, better climate, less stressful... just perfect for a Type B like me. Of course a Type B like me never would be working those 70 hour work weeks to begin with.

Just give me one weekend with them... beer and fish tacos watching the sun set over the Pacific. They can always fly back north occasionally for fancier grub (hope they don't forget to grab their coat).

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer Costs are not as high as you think if you are modest. At the end I was paying $1000/month for a nice one bedroom apartment in a great downtown area. Kramer

Hey Kramer, downtown San Jose? Downtown Santa Clara? Or SF?

Inquiring minds want to know!

Ha

[Dawg52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan not running the A/C, wearing cut-off sweat pants and a T-shirt with the sleeves ripped out, I don't know about him, but I am content.

You must live in the cool mountains. BTW, I'm content too. But my A/C is running.

[Khan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawg52 You must live in the cool mountains. BTW, I'm content too. But my A/C is running.

Mine will be starting tomorrow and for the next week: 90+ and humid.

[kramer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Hey Kramer, downtown San Jose? Downtown Santa Clara? Or SF? Inquiring minds want to know! Ha

Hey Ha,

It was San Jose. I actually really liked it there. And it is very safe, too. The winters were a little wet and cold for me there, but you can't have it all Personally, I always despised San Francisco weather, which is cold, damp, cloudy, and just plain yucky most of the year. But San Jose weather is completely different.

However, at my new location in SoCal it was 75 degrees and sunny today

I just got back from a fast-paced 3 mile run in the hills behind my place where all the rich people live. We all wave to each other. Runners add to their atmospherics

Kramer

[kramer]

As I have stated before, Silicon Valley can make a lot of sense for the single person who lives below their means. In other words, for anyone who does not spend most of their salary. For such a person, it makes sense to go to the places with the highest salaries.

My last few years I was spending less than 20% of my gross salary income, even including international trips (which I did cheaply). Unfortunately, taxes (including FICA, medicare, fed/state income, state disability tax) were another 30% or so.

But for a family guy who has to buy or even rent a home, multiple cars, etc., he is spending most of what he earns and so he is not getting ahead as much.

The situation can be favorable for some DINKS, however.

Kramer

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kramer Hey Ha, However, at my new location in SoCal it was 75 degrees and sunny today I just got back from a fast-paced 3 mile run in the hills behind my place where all the rich people live. We all wave to each other. Runners add to their atmospherics Kramer

Sounds perfect!

Ha

[honobob]

Tonites news featured a story on the tight rental market in San Jose because of another surge in the economy. Rental vacancies are 2.7%. The average rental is $1600 and buildings that are not finished construction are 80% leased and rents are expected to rise 12% this year.

I'm halfway between SF and SJ and normally enjoy cooler but sunny weather. They showed live shots of SF, fog in and very gloomy, and SJ that was perfectly sunny! Temps had dropped 31 degrees from one day to the next in some north bay areas.

You still have to love 6 months of NO rain. When I lived in the midwest it rained every weekend of the summer.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Texas Proud Yea.... the lady that went from $200 mill to $1 shows how stupid she is not to diversify... and also how much money flows to these startups...

I am reasonably sure that lady Celeste Baranski is the ex-wife of my friend. In her defense, I am sure she was something like the VP of engineering in a start up, that went public. As officer she was prohibited from selling for a year, but the time she could sell the stock was probably down 90%+.

In fact, this same friend included me and his poker buddies, in the friends and family allocation when his B2B e-commerce tool provider went public.
We all got stock at $13 most of us sold the next week at between $40-$50 a share. I sold because I figured that market capitalizaton of his 30-40 person company was worth more than all of the residential property sold in Silicon Valley in the previous year (yup a few billion.) He had to wait a year to sell his stock, at which the point company stock was worth practically nothing.

[GoodSense]

These people are so caught up in their slavery high-spending lifestyle. Maybe we should send them a link to this forum to enlighten them?

On second thought, like a previous poster said, they keep the economy going (as do most of the people in debt) so people like us can LBOM and invest.

It's one thing if they love their job, but some of them don't necessarily do so. It sounds like high-spending is a virus, perhaps just as contagious as obesity.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodSense These people are so caught up in their slavery high-spending lifestyle. Maybe we should send them a link to this forum to enlighten them?

There are several other articles in this series, here is a lionk to one about a guy who is more like us. But he does seem to have an exaggerated idea of a safe withdrawal rate.

Overall I found most of these men and women attractive, if caught in a bit sad and unhappy pattern. They remind me of fighters, or other accidental millionaires who really have no financial sense, but tend to get carried along by what is around them.

I have a son in this situation. I have tried to help him, but he really doesn't understand the concept of overhead. And especially that once your spouse gets accustomed to a certain style, you might play hell getting it toned down.

Anyway, here is a guy doing better

Living Modestly Despite a Nice Nest Egg - New York Times

Ha

[cute fuzzy bunny]

How about this one?

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_6175386

I worked for this guy for 3 years back in the late 80's/early 90's. After moving to silicon valley and taking the head honcho job at brocade, he was worth a billion dollars.

Not enough. He had to fool around with the numbers a bit. Allegedly.

I sincerely hope he doesnt go to jail, he's not really an evil guy. Cocky, arrogant, and I'm not sure I ever really saw a high caliber talent in him, but not a criminal type.

Poor guy looks like crap. He's younger than I am and he looks 15-20 years older.

[clifp]

As somebody who spent 18 years in Silicon Valley, I certainly could identify with the folks. On the other hand, after chating online with early retirees in other parts of the country, I can understand how crazy some of this stuff sounds.

It is expensive to live in Silicon Valley, especially housing. Also any type of services gardeners, plumbers, nannies LOL, are very pricy compared to the other parts of the country. It doesn't seem crazy to spend $100 for a bottle of wine, $250 for dinner, or $10,000 for the family vacation when everybody at work and your neighbors do the same thing.

As for the work, I think that Silicon Valley is the best place in the country, and possibly the world to work. Especially if you are interested in any type of technology. There is amazing synergy and energy in Silicon Valley that is almost magical. Despite predictions for the last 20 years that other lower cost places would displace Silicon Valley, it remains at the forefront of most technological changes, computers, networking, biotechnology, even alternative energy. The per capita: patents, IPOs, fast growing companies, best places to work, most admired companies, hottest products etc in Silicon Valley are way ahead of anyplace else on the planet.

A lot of people in Silicon Valley work very hard 60-80+/hours because it is very exciting to part of a revolution products that will effect the lives of millions. Imagine being part of the team that made the iPod, Google Maps, Earth etc., Yahoo mail, World of WarCraft, and know that literally 10s of million of people happily use your product every day. I suspect that brand manager at Proctor Gamble have tens of millions of customers also, but you don't hear people getting excited when the new and improved Tide gets released.

I can remember several years having so much fun at work that I would have happily done it for 1/2 my salary. I don't think I was unusual in the Valley, but probably that sounds bizarre to a lot of people.

Finally, there are huge financial rewards in Silicon Valley for everyday smart people. Good engineers, marketing managers, salesman, financial specialist, and HR managers all have a chance of making millions of dollars via stock options, if they are that right company at the right time.

In my case, when I stop having fun at my job, I started evaluating my options (pun intended) and decided that being able to retire to Hawaii, looked better than working. A fair number of my co-workers joined me in early retirement over the next few years...

However, as other have said, we really want to thank all those hard working multi-millionaire in Silicon Valley for continuing to work. The earnings growth and US stock market increase, which we depend on, are due to a large extent on their work.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Having been in...well...almost exactly the same position as Clif (same company, next division over), I have to agree with darn near everything he said.

Silicon Valley was a very cool place to live and work, especially for someone in the technology business.

But hey, that TCOMP drop from seven figures to six sure did make for some prompt revaluations of the importance of continued employment, didnt they?

[MooreBonds]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp I am reasonably sure that lady Celeste Baranski is the ex-wife of my friend. In her defense, I am sure she was something like the VP of engineering in a start up, that went public. As officer she was prohibited from selling for a year, but the time she could sell the stock was probably down 90%+. In fact, this same friend included me and his poker buddies, in the friends and family allocation when his B2B e-commerce tool provider went public. We all got stock at $13 most of us sold the next week at between $40-$50 a share. I sold because I figured that market capitalizaton of his 30-40 person company was worth more than all of the residential property sold in Silicon Valley in the previous year (yup a few billion.) He had to wait a year to sell his stock, at which the point company stock was worth practically nothing.

I've always wondered about this...are they also prohibited from taking a short position to hedge their gains and/or buying put options (if options are listed for the stock), or does the lock-up period only apply to the physical shares/options they are long and they can do whatever they want with other shares in the company?

[twaddle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooreBonds I've always wondered about this...are they also prohibited from taking a short position to hedge their gains and/or buying put options (if options are listed for the stock), or does the lock-up period only apply to the physical shares/options they are long and they can do whatever they want with other shares in the company?

You can hedge restricted stock (google "zero-cost collar," for example). But lock-up conditions are set by the underwriters of an IPO, and I suppose there could be specific language that prohibits hedging.

BTW, I know one of the people in the article. I haven't talked to him in a few years, but if I track him down, I'll ask him to respond to this thread.

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooreBonds I've always wondered about this...are they also prohibited from taking a short position to hedge their gains and/or buying put options (if options are listed for the stock), or does the lock-up period only apply to the physical shares/options they are long and they can do whatever they want with other shares in the company?

I don't know what the SEC regulations are but...

In most case there aren't options listed for smallish IPO, so that avenue is out.

I can't imagine that officers are allowed to short the stock, since it is no different than selling the stock before the lock up period has ended.

Finally, even if the SEC allows it. Any officer of a new IPO company doing like something you suggested is begging for a lawsuit from the slimy stockholders lawyers like Lerach and company. It would pretty much be a smoking gun if a corporate officer made the use of a derivative to hedge his position, and the stock went down.

AFAIK collars and such used to hedge stock options are only practical for mid to high-level executives in established companies.

[Spanky]

Quote:

By Silicon Valley standards, Brian Wilson is not rich. But despite a nest egg of roughly $1.5 million — small in comparison to many of his engineering friends’ — Mr. Wilson, 40, feels less anxious about his wealth than many of his peers.

It seems that these articles imply that engineers in the Silicon Valley are rich or wealthy. Most seems to struggle with wanting less or comparing down, albeit some realize that they have enough.

Are they implying most or only a few handful of the engineers are rich from stock options? It's true the salary in the Bay Area is about 20% higher than that of the national average and that many had exercised their stock option before the bust. However, the majority, I think, makes just enough to live in a high-cost area, such as the Bay Area.

[Spanky]

Quote:

As for the work, I think that Silicon Valley is the best place in the country, and possibly the world to work. Especially if you are interested in any type of technology.

There are other parts of the country, e.g., AUSTIN, SEATTLE, RALEIGH-DURHAM, Boston, WASHINGTON, DC, LOS ANGELES, that host many high tech companies. The cost of living (except for Boston, Washington DC , and LA) is a lot more affordable.

[ladelfina]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan Quote: . . . “You look around,” Mr. Barbagallo said, “and the pressures to spend more are everywhere.” Children want the latest fashions their peers are wearing and the most popular high-ticket toys. Furniture does not seem up to snuff once you move into a multimillion-dollar home. Spouses talk, and now that resort in Mexico the family enjoyed so much last winter is not good enough when looking ahead to next year. Summer camp, a full-time housekeeper, vintage wines, country clubs: the cost of living bloats. This is beyond my comprehension. I'm sitting here in ~1000 sf house, not running the A/C, wearing cut-off sweat pants and a T-shirt with the sleeves ripped out, looking out the window at the birds and the garden ... I don't know about him, but I am content.

The funny thing about the tone of the article is its underlying and either cynical or unintentional ambiguity -- there's some kind of weird, barely-suppressed sympathy for these "poor people"..

If you are ever tempted to look at the NYT home/garden/travel/technology sections.. the über-rich lifestyle is basically the only one presented. Sometimes it's fun to peruse but usually the consumption promoted is beyond grotesque. It's their bread and butter, being based in the only place more expensive than the Bay area and with a similar wealthy audience.. but still most of their wealth porn is way beyond the means of even the "average" Manhattanite NYT reader.