Is it better to ask for a raise before a spin-off / merger or after?
I would guess that before the spin-off, more money would be available In my experience the reverse is true. The finance folks go into overdrive tightening everything up so that budget forecasts for the transition period are as accurate and predictable as possible. This can be true 6 months out, 12 months out, etc - depending on the size and complexity of the business. So in terms of when to renegotiate, I think approaching the issue after the dust has settled is more realistic. Make sure you know your numbers as per normal and just remember that after the spin-off has occurred it's a business like any other business: if you are in position to negotiate (and reasonably expect) a raise then the fact that they spun off recently - a month or two before - is meaningless to the negotiation. gef05 hit it on the head -- the books get frozen when mergers/spinoffs happen. I worked as an IT guy at a company whose mission was operating call centers -- and they didn't bother paying the phone bill! Why? the terms were already agreed upon, and the powers that be were waiting for final legal sign-off. Try to figure out who the leaders are going to be after the spinoff, and start politicking them. "Corporate restructuring makes everything a flux, so you might as well revisit some core fundamental questions. Here's how to do this professionally: Start floating your CV now. Line up interviews in competing companies. Attend to them. Score a job offer, and have it put into writing, with exact salary, which should be at least 10%++ of your current one. Take a clear empty page, and write on top: ""Business value provided"". Put down your major contributions, and achievements. Wherever possible, put the company's expected dollar value near to it. For bonus points, sum it up on the bottom, and minus your current salary. Difference is ""Profit provided directly to the company's bottom line"". Float this to your manager's desk. At this position, you have only one fundamental question to your boss: ""match or pass?"" :) A corporate spin-off is a good time to do this: 1, to ensure, that your position will not be made redundant; 2, if it is, you have a backup plan. If the parent company's ""getting rid of you"", however, there are even more fundamental questions you might want to ask yourself: is this really a profitable division, or merely a loss leader? Does this company have a future, and the adequate growing options for you, personally?  To answer these questions, you must have an opportunity cost estimation; and for that, you must have second (and preferably, third) options -hence, the strategy above. To conclude, the best time to do your job research is every other month; and the best time to ask for a raise is always now :) Good luck!"
Not necessarily.  You only need to raise prices to maintain current profit margins.  Assuming you aren't living on a paper thin profit margin, you can give your employees a raise and suffer a lower profit margin.  Now, that could have other negative consequences on your stock value and shareholders might be upset, but that is a different discussion. "Absolutely terrible idea(s) on many fronts. Firstly, why are you giving away equity at all? usually it's to attract people you otherwise wouldn't be able to hire (like extremely talented coders or business development managers) but normal employees? Bad idea. If you really want to give up equity, then make sure it's only realized (valued) once certain targets are met (i.e. sales/revenue/share price/investment etc). As for the nomenclature, they're not ""Co-Founders"" - that's typically reserved for the people that foundned the company, not just people who happened to be working for the company it started trading. Call them ""founding employee"" if you must, but they're certainly not founders. Why does this matter? If the company ever takes iff or you get investment, or you fire one of them or one just gets the idea to sue you, their position name suddenly REALLY matters, and by not being careful, they could win a substantial cut of your company in a lawsuit. there's even stories of employees ganging up on their bosses and they end up owning the company. I know someone that's been involved in high 8 figure suit for 7 years for exactly the same reason. So unless they're putting in startup capital or they're taking a serious hit on their salary in return for compensation in the form of equity, don't give anyone equity." Wrong on so many counts.  I have worked with many start-ups, and the well-run ones have all payed their employees good salaries.  They also have mostly older employees (30+) with families and kids, and work reasonable hours.  If you are worried about some VC guy, then don’t let them scam you.  It is their job to squeeze the most equity for the least amount.  As long as whoever in charge knows what they are doing, this will never happen.  Remember, first and foremost, it is a business, and if you see it not making money, or not having the possibility of making money, then don’t work there.  Know what you are getting paid, and know your equity. It can work out great.  I know a lot of people who have ridiculous amounts of cash working at start-ups, and they all stick together and use their experience to have repeat successes. "I don't know of a situation where rejecting a raise would make sense. Often, one can be in a phaseout of some benefit, so that even though you're in a certain tax bracket, the impact of the next $100 is greater than the bracket rate alone. Taxation of social security benefits is one such anomaly. It can be high, but never over 100%. Update - The Affordable Care Act contains such an anomaly - go to the Kaiser Foundation site, and see the benefit a family of three might receive. A credit for up to $4631 toward their health care insurance cost. But, increase the income to above $78120 Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) and the benefit drops to zero. The fact that the next dollar of income will cost you $4631 in the lost credit is an example of a step-function in the tax code. I'd still not turn down the raise, but I'd ask that it be deposited to my 401(k). And when reconciling my taxes each April, I'd use an IRA in case I still went over a bit. Consider, it's April, and your MAGI is $80,120. Even if you don't have to cash to deposit to the IRA, you borrow it, from a 24% credit card if need be. Because the $2000 IRA will trigger not just $300 less Federal tax, but a $4631 health care credit.  Note - the above example will apply to a limited, specific group who are funding their own health care expense and paying above a certain percent of income. It's not a criticism of ACA, just a mathematical observation appropriate to this question. For those in this situation, a close look at their projected MAGI is in order.  Another example - the deduction for college tuition and fees.  This is another ""step function."" Go a dollar over the threshold, $130K joint, and the deduction drops from $4000 to $2000. You can claim that a $2000 deduction is a difference of 'only' $500 in tax due, but the result is a quick spike in the marginal rate. For those right at this number, it would be worth it to increase their 401(k) deduction to get back under this limit." "What makes a ""standard"" raise depends on how well the economy is doing, how well your particular industry is doing, and how well your employer is doing. All these things change constantly, so anyone who says, ""a good raise is 5%"" or whatever number is being simplistic. Even if true when he said it, it won't necessarily be true next year, or this year in a different industry, etc. The thing to do is to look for salary surveys that are reasonably current and applicable. If today, in your industry, the average annual raise is 3% -- again, just making up a number -- then that's what you should think of as ""standard"". If you want a number, okay: In general, as a first-draft number, I look for a raise that's 2% or so above the current inflation rate. Yes, of course I'd LIKE to get a 20% raise every year, but that's not going to happen in real life. On the other hand if a company gives me raises that don't keep pace with inflation, than barring special circumstances I'm going to be looking for another job. But there are all sorts of special circumstances. If the economy is in a depression and unemployment in my field is 50%, I'll probably figure I'm lucky to have a job at all and not be too worried about raises. If the economy is booming and all my friends are getting 10% and 20% raises, then I'll want that too. As others have said, in the United States at least, the best way to get a pay raise is to change jobs. I think most American companies are absolutely stupid about this. They don't want to give current employees big raises, so they let them quit, and then hire replacements at a much higher salary than they were paying the guy they just drove to quit. And the replacement doesn't know the company and may have a lot to learn before he is fully productive. And then they congratulate themselves that they kept raises this year to only 3% -- even though total salaries paid went up by 10% because the new hires demanded higher salaries. They actively punish employees for staying with the company. (Reminds me of an article I read in a business magazine by an executive of a cell phone company. He bemoaned the fact that in the cell phone industry it is very hard to keep customers: they are constantly switching to other vendors. And I thought, Duh, maybe it's because you offer big discounts for the first year or two, and after that you jack your prices up through the roof. You actively punish your customers for staying with you more than 2 years, and then you wonder why customers leave after 2 years.) Oh, if you do change jobs: Absolutely do not buy a line of ""we'll start you off with this lower salary but don't worry because you'll get a big raise in a year"". When you're looking for a job, it's very easy to turn down a poor offer. Once you have taken a job, leaving to get another job is a big decision and a lot of work. So you have way more bargaining power on starting salary than on raises. And the company knows it and is trying to take advantage of it. Also consider not just percentage increase but what you're making now versus what other people with similar experience are making. If people comparable to you are making $50k and you're making $30k, you're more likely to get a big raise than if you're already making $80k. If the company says, ""We just don't have the budget to give you a raise"", the key question is, ""Is that true?"" If the company is tottering on the edge of bankruptcy and trying to cut costs everywhere, then even if they know you're a good and productive employee, they may really just not have the money to give you a good raise. But if business is booming, this could just be an excuse. It might be an excuse for ""we're trying to bleed employees white so the CEO can get another million dollar bonus this year"". Or it might be a euphemism for ""you're really not a very useful employee and we're seriously thinking of firing you, no way we're going to give you a raise for the little bit of work you do when you bother to show up"". My final word: Be realistic. What matters isn't what you want or think you need, but what you are worth to the company, and what other people with similar skills are willing to work for. If you are doing work that brings in $20k per year for the company, there is no way they are going to pay you more than $20k for very long. You can go on and on about how expensive it is these days to pay the mortgage and pay medical bills and feed your 10 children and support your cocaine addiction, but none of that is relevant to what you are worth to the company. Likewise if there are millions of people out there who would love to have your job for $20k, if you demand a lot more than that they're going to fire you and hire one of them. Conversely, if you're bringing in $100k a year for the company, they'll be willing to pay you a substantial percentage of that." Most businesses want to grow, and there are a variety of ways to raise the money needed to hire new employees and otherwise invest in the business to increase the rate of that growth. You as a stock holder should hope that management is choosing the least expensive option for growth. Some of the options are debt, selling equity to venture capitalists, or selling equity on the open market (going public). If they choose debt, they pay interest on that debt. If they choose to sell equity to venture capitalists, then your shares get diluted, but hopefully the growth makes up for some of that dilution. If they choose to go public, dilution is still a concern, but the terms are usually a little more favorable for the company selling because the market is so liquid.  In the US, current regulations for publicly traded companies cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1M/year, so that's the rule of thumb for considering whether going public makes sense when calculating the cost of fundraising, but as mentioned, regulations make it less advantageous for executives who choose to sell their shares after the company goes public. (They can't sell when good spot prices appear.) Going public is often considered the next step for a company that has grown past the initial venture funding phase, but if cash-flow is good, plenty of companies decide to just reinvest profits and skip the equity markets altogether. "This would never apply for tax ""brackets"". It's not as though making an extra dollar will put you into an entire separate bracket, the IRS isn't that bad. They bump up the ""brackets"" every $50, so you will never turn down a raise because it would cause you to lose income. However if your raise would preclude you from contributing to your IRA because it pushes you over $110,000 then yes, you could turn it down or explain to your boss that it would need to be just a little bit higher to cover your IRA contribution loss." I recently was offered $1/hr raise. I turned it down because 1.)I had been looking for other jobs and the extra $150 per month wasn't enough money to keep me from exploring other options so it would look bad to take a raise and leave a month later. You never want to burn bridges. 2.) Raises aren't given out everyday. The business I work for is having financial troubles and the $1/hr was probably the best they could do at the time. If business picks up and they can afford to give me more money they won't do it because the record will show that I just got a raise.  One good extra is that your boss will be flabergasted that you just turned down a raise and you may gain a lot of respect from your superiors. Don't confuse strategically turning down a raise and letting others sway your opinion because they don't wanna cough up the cash. Should I invest money in the pre-IPO stocks soon to be offered by the   company that I work for? Is it wise to do this? What should I be thinking about? What are the   risks? The last time I was offered pre-IPO friends and family stock, I purchased half of my allotment, and had my parents purchase the other half. Since I had a 6-month blackout period, I had to hold my portion. My parents sold their portion one day after the IPO. The price went up dramatically for about a day and a half, then dived continuously. My portion ended up being worthless. My parents made a few bucks. Good for them. Not a huge deal either way, since my cost was relatively low. If I had a chance to do it again, I'd give it all to friends or family instead of splitting it, and have them sell quickly if they realized a profit. You might be luckier than I was. That's a simple overhead calculation.  For secretary how much time is this person going to potentially save verses how much time I spend on those tasks.  If secretary pay rate is near, equal, or less than what I spend in my own hourly rate it makes sense to hire.  If it is not, do not hire, you don't want to loose money on overhead or have people sitting around doing nothing.  Brand Manager is more complicated because it involves speculation and projection.  I would want some kind of trial solution before a more permanent solution was decided on.  For example, if brand manager is renewing my brand image what do I anticipate that new image will bring in additional revenue, or alternatively, what new markets will my product now be able to tap into that it was not able to tap into before.  Then I would do the simple sales calculation of how much revenue would I need to expect to cover the cost of the overhead and project to justify viability.  Then simply ask the question of if it is reasonable to expect those kinds of returns from this person or project.  In business there is risk.  There's really two ways to look at risk, big risk = big reward and screw the consequences if we fail, or make sure that risk is diminished as much as possible before making a decision.  I would say most start-ups begin with big risk = big reward and then evolve into diminishing risk as much as possible.  Both have many good and many bad examples.  Most involve businesses dead before they figure out how to diminish risk, or in extreme examples wall street people diminishing risk by cheating the system, but we aren't discussing ethics. Lets say the hurdle rate for this company is 10% and the current return on assets is 8%. A linear increase in revenue and earnings would actually destroy some value as projects that have a 9% return are accepted even though they destroy value for the shareholder.  hope this helps! "Now, my own answer:  If you join and receive equity, do the 1/3 split as a max. Truthfully, if it were my company, I would try to negotiate with you to only give you 15%--20% because as an advisor you're not going to be involved in executing the idea to turn it into a business.  If you contribute capital, do it as a loan. End of story.  You don't own more because you financed growth... you shouldn't. The growth will have come because of the collective performance of the whole team. You should get paid back at a ""fair"" rate for your investment... if the company can handle it, I would argue something like 10% interest is reflective of the risk you're taking with your money.  If the finances are so tight that the interest repayment isn't an option, do the math behind what you should be paid for the loan in interest, and convert that to shares or equity somehow, and get paid back for the invested capital.  If the company can't repay your loan, the business model may not be sound enough, or developed enough, to be investing in to begin with." And to your point, the same thing that was said above applies - when younger people bounce often and end up being at inflated rates, they are more often the first to get cut when cost changes need to be applied. Seen it happen all the time in multiple companies. Sometimes it's okay to work up to a good position, than to get overpaid for being an underperformer. "Since you have no sales, I'd likely question how well could you determine the value of the company's assets in a reasonable fashion. You may be better to estimate sales and discount that back to a current valuation. For example, insurance companies could determine that if you wanted to be paid $x/month for the rest of your life, the present day value of that is $y. There are similar mechanisms for businesses but this does get tricky as the estimates have to be somewhat conservative and you have to be prepared for some other scenarios. For example, if you got the $200,000 then would you really never have to ask for more external equity financing in the future or is it quite likely that you'd want another infusion down the road? While you can mark it at $1,000,000 there will be questions about why that value that you'd have to answer and saying, ""Cause I like big round numbers,"" may not go over well. My suggestion is to consider what kind of sales will the company have over the next 5 years that you could work back to determine a current price. If you believe the company can have $5,000,000 in sales over the 5 years then it may make sense to place the current valuation of $1,000,000 on it. I wouldn't look too much into the money and time you've invested as that isn't likely to go over well with investors that just because you've put in what is worth $x, the business may or may not be worth that. The challenge is that without sales, it is quite difficult to get an idea of what is the company worth. If it makes billions, then it is worth a lot more than a company that never turns a profit. Another way to consider this is the question of what kind of economic output do you think you could do working here for the next 5 years? Could you do thousands of dollars of work, millions of dollars or just a few bucks? Consider how you want this to be seen where if you want some help look up episodes of TV shows like ""Dragon's Den"" or ""Shark Tank"" as these give valuations often as part of the pitch which is what you are doing." Note that after 15 years, the tax exemption is €36800 per person, which includes both the principal you desposited and the accumulated interest.  It's possible that you will have a higher balance than this in your savings account at this point and would still owe tax on the interest accumulated above the exempted amount.  After 20 years, you get the full tax exemption, the lesser of your portion of the mortgage debt and €162000 per person. In direct answer to your questions: I'm not aware of any exceptions to the 15 year rule for allowing the accumulated interest to be tax free when selling your house.  If your accumulated interest is low enough, you might consider just paying the tax on it as it would give you the most flexibility in choosing a new mortgage.  This is why I asked about more details about your interest rate and how long the mortgage has been running. It may, however, possible to couple the savings account to a new ABN AMRO Bankspaar mortgage when you buy a new house.  You should check your mortgage terms and conditions.  For example, Section 23.12 in ABN AMRO's terms and conditions from 2010 describes this.  See here.  It is probably best, however, to speak directly with either your mortgage broker or with a mortgage adviser with ABN AMRO.  If your mortgage broker still worked on commission (aflsuitprovisie) when you closed your mortgage, then they are obligated to assist you with this type of question. In order to qualify for the tax exemption, you must use the saved value to pay off debt on your primary residence (eigenwoningschuld).  Decoupling the savings account entirely from a mortgage will disqualify you from the tax advantages.  You will owe tax on all accumulated interest.