vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
No necessarily.   Do you bring any unique value to the company other than a sweaty pair of hands?   Did you bring a unique skill, bring in investors, have relationships that are able to get the business off the ground, have intellectual property worth something to the business?  Did you cultivate the unique seeds or strain on your own before the business started?  These are all things one takes into consideration when dividng up shares in a company.  The question you need to ask yourself is could someone else have provided the sweaty hands other than you?  If yes, then unfortunately you provide no unique value to the business and that will be reflected in how share are portioned.   I'm speaking as a co-founder in a Silicon Valley tech company.   I've spent a lot of money with lawyers to understand this.   You should definitely talk to a lawyer.
"This information is clearly ""material"" (large impact) and ""non-public"" according to the statement of the problem.  Also, decisions like United States v. Carpenter make it clear that you do not need to be a member of the company to do illegal insider trading on its stock. Importantly though, stackexchange is not a place for legal advice and this answer should not be construed as such.  Legal/compliance at Company A would be a good place to start asking questions."
"Apologize - replied without actually looking at the financials. After reviewing -- Starbuck's financial statements use the line item ""Cost of sales including occupancy costs."" This is very different than ""hiding"" rent in COGS, as they plainly describe what it represents. Anyone who wants to derive true cost of goods sold without occupancy costs can look in the footnotes of the financials to find the lease expense for the year and subtract it. This line item is used by multiple public companies (Whole Foods is one that comes to mind), and regardless of their true motives, they have convinced the SEC that they think it gives the consumer the most accurate view of their business operations. As with all financial statements, the footnotes play a crucial role in understanding how a business works. If you want to find opportunities for future value or an Achilles heel, look in the notes."
Thanks. I see the term 'cofounder' used for those who were instrumental in the creation of businesses (such as Twitter) despite only being employees at the time. I think with Twitter there is an argument that employees were founders because they pivoted a failing business with employee ideas for products.   But in my case, I have a pretty good idea of what I want to do and if a founding-employee were to drastically change the idea for the better, I would probably allow the title 'co-founder', if they pivoted from a failing idea to a winning idea.   As for employee stock, it's pretty common these days to give away some capital (maybe 10%) to employees in order to spur them on. The idea that they could potentially all become millionaires if the product launches and is successful down the track is a good incentive to work hard. Of course it would have to vest over time.
I am mostly interested in day to day records, and would like the data to contain information such as dividend payouts, and other parameters commonly available, such as on : http://finviz.com/screener.ashx ... but the kind of queries you can do is limited. For instance you can only go back two years.
There are several reports under the Reports>Income & Expenses menu which could be useful. Cash Flow - shows, for a particular set of accounts, where incoming and outgoing money from those accounts came from and went to. Expense BarChart/PieChart - shows top N expenses. Income Statement (also called Profit & Loss) - shows all incomes and expenses for the time period. Each of these reports have an options dialog which will let you change the period that they are reporting on and the accounts to be included in the reports. The Cash Flow report sounds particularly useful for your second scenario.
If this is a publicly traded company, I'd be thinking the shareholders should take a long hard look at this.  This is a man who hates his employees more than he likes money.  A spite-based decision is obviously going to be inferior to a money-based decision.  And shareholders want money.
I've talked to several very experienced accountants that deal with startup shares, stock 83(b)'s, etc. weekly (based in SF, CA) as this issue would have had a massive impact on me.  The most important part of filing an 83(b) is notifying the IRS within 30 days. The law requires the written notification within the 30 day window. Adding it to that years tax return is an IRS procedure. Forgetting to include a copy of that years tax return is apparently a common occurrence when no tax was owed (0 spread, you actually paid the FMV). And the accepted method to resolve this is to simply file a blank amendment for that years return and include the copy of the 83(b) election.
"Honestly it's hard to take anything you say seriously just based on the prejudice of it all. Experience is experience. You don't need to be a corporate suite to have valuable business experience and share that information. You also don't need to talk like you have a bored shoved up your ass to present a good argument. Sometimes entertainment value adds to the overall message. Honestly, I could careless what WSJ published. I know it's a ""respected business publication"".  Times have changed thanks to the internet. More and more developers are going to realize that they are being used as a tool to make their employers rich."
In that case, the company should say, ""I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense."" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment.
Ok. They take a lot of risk with a 29 years old CFO with little experience.  Maybe the idea is to save tons on money by paying much less for a kiddo that work non-stop (while some older experienced finance people are watching every step he does)?  Anyway, I work in the same company (electronics) for 20 years. Quite high in the corporate ladder (IT). The amount of damage done by clueless young Harvard garduates is astonishing. They are mostly just good with talking very convincingly.  I also figured out how manipulate them with their ill-conceived IT projects: I let them fail without giving any warning for how bad are their ideas.  Their life-span in my company is 2-3 years. Most got fired, and the company never learned the lesson.
They are a business. You're not a corporation. They paid you more than $600 during the year, so they're supposed to send 1099 to you and the IRS about it. They need your taxpayer certification (W9) for that. They were supposed to ask for it before they paid you, but yes - they're supposed to ask for it.
"In the US, a private company with less than 500 owners can dictate who can or can't become a shareholder (this is true in general, but I'm sure there are loopholes).   Prior to Google's IPO I could not buy shares in Google at any price.   The reason Google was ""forced"" to go public is the 500 shareholder rule.   At a high level, with 500 shareholders the company is forced to do some extra financial accounting and they no longer can control who owns a share of the company, allowing me to purchase shares of google at that point.  At that point, it typically becomes in the companies best interest to go public. See this article about Google approaching the 500 shareholder limit in 2003. Further, Sorkin is not quite correct that ""securities laws mandate that the company go public"" if by ""go public"" we mean list on a stock exchange, available for general purchase.   Securities laws mandate what has to be reported in financial reporting and when you have to report it. Securities laws also can dictate restrictions on ownership of stock and if a company can impose their own restrictions. A group of investors cannot force a company onto a stock exchange.   If shares of Facebook are already for sale to anyone, then having >500 shareholders will force Facebook to file more paperwork with the SEC, it won't force Facebook onto the NYSE or NASDAQ.   When that point is reached, it may be in Facebook's best interest to have an IPO, but they will not be required by law to do so. Update:  CNN article discusses likely Facebook IPO in 2012. When companies have more than 500   shareholders, they're required to make   significant financial disclosures --   though they can choose to remain   private and keep their stock from   trading publicly. However, most   companies facing mandatory disclosures   opt to go public. The Securities and Exchange Commission   gives businesses lots of time to   prepare for that milestone. Companies   have until 120 days after the end of   the fiscal year in which they cross   the 500-shareholder line to begin   making their disclosures. If Facebook   tips the scale this year, that gives   it until April 2012 to start filing   financial reports."
"&gt;Perhaps ""almost always"" was a bit of hyperbole, but in matters of cost vs. quality I'd expect publicly traded companies to prioritize short-term shareholder profit (or be sued by said shareholders.)   Can you give me any examples of where shareholders sued the company because they weren't making much profit or focused on long term rather than short term? I can't think of any. Maybe if the company were grossly negligent in some way, but in general, no I don't think that happens, or at least I've never heard of it, and it sounds like a stupid thing for shareholders to do because they're never under any obligation for a piece of the profit either."
Here are the basic questions I usually ask any new business startup: Do these numbers/answers seem reasonable to you and is some benchmark available that allows you to see how likely this is?   Remember, particularly in Internet-based advertising ventures, the client may be indirect.  The person who clicks on a Google context-based link is not directly Google's client.  The person who decided to host AdWords code on their site is the direct client. You're also going to want to see a Gant chart or some process chart indicating exactly what needs to be done, at what cost and by whom.  Answers to these questions give a sense of not only how seriously they are taking the business, but also how organised. My final question: who is your first client? They need either someone who is going to contract the service, or have a clear indication of where income is going to come from, on their first day of trading. Their task is to sell their idea to you by proving that it will return on your investment and be profitable.  From the strength of these answers you can gauge the value of your investment to them, how critical it is, how risky the opportunity and - ultimately - the stake and returns you should expect.
Don’t do anything that causes taxes or penalties, beyond that it’s entirely personal choice and other posters have already done a great job enumerating then.  I recently switched jobs in June and rolled over a 401k from my old company to new company and the third party managing the account at the new company was much more professional and walked me through all the required steps and paperwork.
What I mean to say is that this is never the right way to bring up an issue. If you disagree with it so vehemently, you have the option of leaving for a company which shares your values. (Sorry for the you/your, I'm not literally talking about you.)
Let's reverse this.  If you had a business to hold corporate information, and that information was leaked to the world, do you think the corporation would agree that you shouldn't be put out of business?  They would want that and some blood for their troubles.
"If one looks at the ""Guide to Information Returns"" in the Form 1099 General Instructions (the instructions that the IRS provides to companies on how to fill out 1099 and other forms), it says that the 1099-B is due to recipient by February 15, with a footnote that says ""The due date is March 15 for reporting by trustees and middlemen of WHFITs."" I doubt that exception applies, though it may. There's also a section in the instructions on ""Extension of time to furnish statements to recipients"" which says that a company can apply to the IRS to get an extension to this deadline if needed. I'm guessing that if you were told that there were ""complications"" that they may have applied for and been given this extension, though that's just a guess. While you could try calling the IRS if you want (and in fact, their web site does suggest calling them if you don't receive a W-2 or 1099-R by the end of February), my honest opinion is that they won't do much until mid-March anyway. Unfortunately, you're probably out of luck being able to file as early as you want to."
Well, I believe this should be left up to the employer, but I think a  good employer should offer some level of transparency.  Knowing that someone makes more than you, for justifiable reasons, should be an inspiration to get better at your job.  Everyone in the world knows how much athletes make, and it seems to make them compete a little harder because they know there could be a big pay day if they perform well enough. The problem in business seems to be objective standards of ranking employees, a lot of it seems based on politics (depending on the industry).
"What could the tax issues with the IRS be? I thought (but not totally certain) that the tax treatment of an ISO option was based on difference between exercise price and FMV at the time of the sale.  This is an accounting issue. There were times not so long ago that companies actually did these things on purpose, to boost the stock grant values for their employees (especially senior employees). They would give a grant but date it with an earlier date with a more favorable valuation. This is called ""backdating"", and it brought companies down and CEOs into criminal courts. In addition, only reasonable compensation is allowed as a deduction for the company, and incorrectly set strike price may be deemed unreasonable. Thus, the deduction the company would take for your compensation can be denied, leading to loss of tax benefit (this was also a weapon used by the IRS at the time against companies doing backdating). Last but not least, company that has intentions of going public cannot allow itself such a blatant disregard of the accounting rules. Even if the mistake was not made on purpose (as it sounds), it is a mistake that has to be corrected. What should I take into consideration to determine whether a 27% increase in shares is a fair exchange for an increase in 270% increase in strike price. Did you know the strike price when you signed the contract? Was it a consideration for you? For most people, the strike price is determined at the board approval, since the valuations are not public and are not disclosed before you actually join, which is already after you've agreed to the terms. So basically, you agreed to get 100 sheets of toilet paper, and instead getting 127 sheets. So you're getting 27 sheets more than you initially agreed to. Why are you complaining? In other words, options are essentially random numbers which are quite useless. By the time you get to exercise them, they'll be diluted through a bunch of additional financing rounds, and their value will be determined for real only after the IPO, or at least when your company's stocks are trading OTC with some reasonable volume. Until then - it's just a number with not much of a meaning. The FMV does matter for early exercise and 83(b) election, if that is an option, but even then - I doubt you can actually negotiate anything."
Assuming the US, if a human assessor audited you, could you show a future profit motive or will they conclude you are expensing a hobby? If you answer yes, you are likely to only be deducting limited expenses this year, carrying forward losses to your profitable years.  See the examples in pub 535: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch01.html#en_US_2014_publink1000208633
No matter how a company releases relevant information about their business, SOMEBODY will be the first to see it. I mean, of all the people looking, someone has to be the first. I presume that professional stock brokers have their eyes on these things closely and know exactly who publishes where and when to expect new information. In real life, many brokers are going to be seeing this information within seconds of each other. I suppose if one sees it half a second before everybody else, knows what he's looking for and has already decided what he's going to do based on this information, he might get a buy or sell order in before anybody else. Odds are that if you're not a professional broker, you don't know when to expect new information to be posted, and you probably have a job or a family or like to eat and sleep now and then, so you can't be watching somebody's web site constantly, so you'll be lagging hours or days behind the full-time professionals.
"Sometimes when you are trying to qualify for a loan, the lender will ask for proof of your account balances and costs. Your scheme here could be cause for some questions: ""why are you paying $20-30k to your credit card each month, is there a large debt you haven't disclosed?"". Or perhaps ""if you lost your job, would you be able to afford to continue to pay $20-30k"". Of course this isn't a real expense and you can stop whenever you want, but still as a lender I would want to understand this fully before loaning to someone who really does need to pay $20-30k per month. Who knows this might hiding some troublesome issues, like perhaps a side business is failing and you're trying to keep it afloat."
"These people are pretty off. Insider trading cases, outside of a tender offer context, require some sort of a breach of duty. It's not simply ""non-public material information"". You have to trade securities in interstate, based on or while in possession of the material non-public information, and in doing so is a breach of duty owed to the company or to the information source.  Now simply saying ""personal info"" about an executive does not tell me much about its materiality. So assuming it passes the materiality test, and assuming you yourself aren't a corporate insider, then the only thing left to discuss is whether or not it is misappropriation. To be misappropriation you need to be breaching some duty owed to your information source. Now this isn't just principal-agent duty, this can extend to friends and family if there is a pattern of keeping confidences. So unless you're this guys brother or doctor there really isn't a strong claim against you."
One's paycheck typically has a YTD (year to date) number that will end on the latest check of the year. I am paid bi-weekly, and my first 2012 check was for work 12/25 - 1/7. So, for my own balance sheet, brokerage statements and stock valuations end 12/31, but my pay ended 12/24. And then a new sheet starts.
The 10-K language is very specific. And as someone that has worked w/ securities attorneys to write these things, I know it is worded like that for a reason. Regardless, to have that risk factor in there and not disclose executives leaving is really shoddy disclosure.
i work at a bank. if a private company that we've never heard of wants a loan, we will be more hesitant than if it were a public, household name covered by equity research analysts. requires more due diligence on our part. if they get s&amp;p or moody's ratings, that makes us more comfortable. the company wants the loan more than we want to lend to them, so in my mind, they should be the one paying for it.  i agree that this creates a conflict of interest, and recognize that conflict when using the research.
You're can only get used (you are being used now,) if you let them.  Tell him that a 25% share is the minimum you'll take and that you'll hand him all the login information in the morning if he doesn't accept your terms. Don't bother explaining who did what, he surely knows. And if he doesn't, he surely won't have dome revelation by you telling him the work you did. Quit and learn your lesson and start a competition business exactly the same, and smoothly push your network to your own shop.   Your pal that took out the loan may be entitled to some more equity than you and the third guy, but $10k is really not much money in business. You guys should be making that in revenue in just a matter of weeks. Especially if you have to support three employees / shareholders.   Of course, we only know your side to this story. He may have spent a lot of time on licensing and using his personal network to accomplish certain things that you fail to mention here or are just unaware of.
You should not open a company unless and until you want to continue operating your company for the longer term. If it is only for a year so so, refrain from opening a company. I am an IT contractor and operate through a limited company. Believe me it isn't that difficult to operate through a limited company. If you are afraid of doing your books, get an accountant and he will do it for you. Should not cost you more than a £1000 - 1500 or so. Regarding what you can claim as an expense, it depends on how you can confirm that the expenses you incurred are for the company. Your accountant can help you out on that. If you claim false expenses and are caught, you have to forgo a lot to the HMRC.  Google is the best option, there are loads of sites which can help you on that.
Thank you for sharing. I had a feeling it be a legal but soulless job. Unfortunately I have mouths to feed so I'll do what it takes. I just don't want to be fucked over from a startup company since I never worked for one.