[HN Gopher] Understanding Startup Offers
___________________________________________________________________
Understanding Startup Offers
Author : medtner
Score : 107 points
Date : 2021-09-24 16:30 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (withcompound.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (withcompound.com)
| bruce343434 wrote:
| Addendum: Understanding _American_ Startup Offers
| sys_64738 wrote:
| Moral of story: avoid startups.
| synergy20 wrote:
| Chatted with some early-stage-then-IPO-ed engineers yesterday, I
| asked "aren't your company IPO-ed and you should have retired?",
| the answer is, after multiple dilutions in rounds of fund raises,
| his options ended up worth just a few thousands, not useful at
| all.
|
| There is no way the startup you have been working for will keep
| your interest a priority, and you never know if your share will
| reach zero in the process of multi-stage VC rounds.
|
| Unless you're the founders who will always be at the negotiation
| table for new rounds, I saw no point to work for startups, not at
| all.
| clpm4j wrote:
| I think the main advantage of working at a startup is when
| you're relatively young and inexperienced - you're being
| compensated in the experience and accelerated job titles that
| you can then leverage to ramp up your career by joining other
| companies or starting your own. Getting an exit is a cherry on
| top.
| dhd415 wrote:
| In my experience, getting a FAANG job accelerates your career
| as well or better than titling up quickly in a startup.
| Having a FANG position on your resume is more of a known
| quantity for future potential employers than being promoted
| quickly in an unknown startup.
| glassconclusion wrote:
| I'm working for an unknown startup and I feel like I will
| placed in a pool of entry level candidates if I decide to
| join a big corp.
| dhd415 wrote:
| I would expect that your startup experience would place
| you well among a pool of entry-level candidates once you
| made it past the resume screening stage. Where the FANG
| position is going to help you is in getting past that
| stage. Fairly or unfairly, having a FANG position on your
| resume is kinda' like having a degree from an elite
| university in that recruiters will view your resume more
| favorably.
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| I don't think people at established companies care about
| gaudy job titles at startups. Being a director at some
| chaotic mess of a company (and much of the time that is what
| startups are) doesn't signal competence.
|
| The opposite can be true, when IC's at startups who have not
| truly learned their craft jump to management too early.
| clpm4j wrote:
| Yeah true I suppose there was some bias in my assumption. I
| was thinking specifically about relatively well known Bay
| Area startups... say you're a Senior or Staff Engineer at a
| startup that has raised from top tier VCs then
| hypothetically you might be better positioned to be come
| that #1 or #2 engineering hire at the next hot startup, or
| you'll be able to get more meetings with those VCs should
| you start your own thing because you're already a "startup
| person" rather than 1 of X00,000 FAANG engineers.
| majormajor wrote:
| I don't think startup job titles are worth much but they can
| be massive skill accelerators.
|
| If you're in the first 5 years of your career you'll have
| more opportunity to learn more technologies at a small
| startup where everyone has to do everything than at a FAANG
| (especially compared to Google where you will only learn the
| Google internal stack).
|
| You can leverage that into a much higher paying job in a way
| that you wouldn't be able to leverage experience at a mid-
| level company.
| Hermitian909 wrote:
| Even this is becoming less valuable as bigger companies start
| to invest in training and mentorship.
|
| Three people I know how graduated college recently working at
| big companies have senior engineers dedicating multiple hours
| a week to mentorship and a lot of learning opportunities.
| They're growing much faster than junior engineers thrown into
| the deep end IMO.
|
| The faster title advancement doesn't mean much IMO. Working
| at a big company I can say that outside of a certain group of
| other big companies we just don't trust titles to have any
| correlation to abilities.
| [deleted]
| ctvo wrote:
| > _Chatted with some early-stage-then-IPO-ed engineers
| yesterday, I asked "aren't your company IPO-ed and you should
| have retired?", the answer is, after multiple dilutions in
| rounds of fund raises, his options ended up worth just a few
| thousands, not useful at all._
|
| Assuming series a engineering role, .30 - .50%, even after
| dilution, for an IPO'd company, we're assuming 1BN+, to walk
| away with a "few thousands" is hard to calculate.
|
| A few hundred thousands is more likely (taxes) and even that
| isn't a worthwhile trade-off for most folks. It'd need to be in
| the millions to make it more attractive than big tech at the
| moment.
| bbno4 wrote:
| Is there one of these but for UK?
| keeptrying wrote:
| These set of questions are very thorough and will help you avoid
| 80% or more of the bad situations. I had to figure out all thsi
| on my own and most startups won't answer these questions even
| after getting an offer.
|
| Some more question you might want to ask: - is there a double
| trigger clause? (If not then the founder can restart your vesting
| after an acquisition and do other nasty things.)
|
| - can I exercise my options after beating while I'm at the
| company. (You'll be surprised but I've seen companies that don't
| allow you to exercise while you're employed there which means you
| can kiss qsbs goodbye and you can't leave comoany if it gets too
| big else you'll lose the options)
|
| - can I sell my exercised stock on the secondary market? (Some
| companies don't allow this)
|
| 95% of people don't ask these questions and can get screwed.
| fasteddie wrote:
| This is a great, clean explainer.
|
| Series B seems to be the sweet spot to me if you would like to
| avoid working at a FAANG but want similar EV in your comp
| package, assuming you are decently good at guessing winners.
|
| At that point the company is meaningfully de-risked but the
| equity offers are still pretty good for mid-career folks that you
| end up with millions in a good exit.
| xtracto wrote:
| I've come to prefer post-Series A startups. In my experience
| Series B tended to be the moment where the startup beings to
| establish "controls" and bureaucracy for things. It is when you
| start setting OKRs, it is when you start having 2 or more tiers
| of mid-management and "policy documents" start flying around.
|
| For me, post Series A is the sweet spot when there are exciting
| problems to solve and you still have good leeway to make things
| happen without too much red tape.
| lankinen wrote:
| Great post!
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| It would be helpful to explain how an early employee (whether
| still employed or separated from the company) is able to obtain
| the following documentation from their company to demonstrate
| QSBS treatment to the IRS (or if a letter indicating such from a
| finance department or the CFO would suffice):
|
| > Even though reporting QSBS is simple, you should still keep
| financial statements and other supporting documents to support
| your claim. Detailed balance sheets for the company from its
| incorporation through the close of your investment will show if
| it has more than $50 million in aggregate gross assets. Equity
| documents (type, date, etc.) are also important to demonstrate
| that your investment qualifies. [1]
|
| [1] https://withcompound.com/manual-company-equity/qsbs
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| This is a good point. A lot of founders seem to want to protect
| or hide this information. Usually that's a red flag for me, but
| it's common. I think it needs to me more normalized and
| formalized.
| [deleted]
| rdli wrote:
| The post says "an alternative career accelerated through
| learning, wealth, and reputation" ... and then doesn't talk about
| anything other than equity.
|
| The article says "Equity will be your largest driver of
| compensation at a startup." as the rationalization of why it
| focuses on that.
|
| Based on my past experiences, I would say that the learning,
| network, and reputational effects resulted in far more wealth to
| me over the medium-term than any incremental change in equity or
| salary.
| qqtt wrote:
| It would be interesting to see some analysis comparing pre-IPO
| offers versus standard FAANG-style engineering offers and see
| what the monetary difference actually is.
|
| In the not-so-distant past, start ups were pretty much the only
| avenue to secure a multiple-million dollar personal liquidity
| event, in the off chance you join a successful start up, work
| your tail off, and the company gets to a point where that exit
| happened (which was and still is rare).
|
| But nowadays, with software development offers being what they
| are are large public companies with outstanding growth prospects,
| the argument that you need to join a start up to fast track
| earning millions is pretty much out the window. Not only do
| people who are working at large stable companies like Google &
| Facebook have the generous perks and large company work life
| balance stability behind them - they are also soundly beating
| almost all "successful" start up offers in terms of compensation
| over the long term.
|
| I would love to see some real life practical numbers with start
| up offers at different stages of funding and how that would
| really compare to simply working at Google or Facebook over the
| same time horizon.
|
| It seems the only reasons to work at a start up these days are if
| you really really love building products, want to wear many
| different hats, are frustrated by the pace of big companies, and
| are stifled by the big company processes that dominate the day to
| day life working at these companies.
|
| Compelling reasons to work for a start up for sure, but
| compensation is not even in the top 10 reason to join a start up
| anymore, IMO.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| Dan Luu wrote about this a few years ago:
| https://danluu.com/startup-tradeoffs/ (from 2015, but has been
| updated a bit since then).
|
| I think the big challenge is that accurately evaluating a
| startup offer is very, very difficult. And it can be really,
| really contextual. As an example, I know someone who worked at
| a company that went public fairly recently, and their result
| was vastly worse than the EV of a big company, but they also
| had a below average startup EV because they left the company
| and didn't purchase all of their options when they left.
|
| With Google or Facebook, the question is really just stock
| growth and grant sizes.
|
| With startups its growth and grant sizes, yes, and the expected
| type of liquidity event(s) and the time horizon on that event
| and your plans and company culture over that time horizon, also
| any additional funding rounds can markedly affect things and...
| enra wrote:
| The challenging part about equity that every company is
| different, takes bit different path and has different chances
| of success.
|
| My anecdotal example that I don't know anyone who made
| massive/post-economic money by joining a public company. You
| can probably make six figures easily, and potentially low 7
| figures in some years. The only people I know who have mode 8
| or 9 figures are people who have joined startups early or
| relatively early before the IPO, and the startup became a
| $20-100B company.
|
| Seed stage, as one of the first senior engineers, you might get
| 2%-0.5% equity. At $20M valuation (common YC valuation at the
| moment). That's $400k-100k value vesting over 4 years (which
| might sound low compared to FAANG offers). The point is the
| upside potential, not the value. FAANG companies might grow 5x
| in 5 years. Startups can grow much more. That's why the whole
| VC market exists.
|
| Hitting $1B means the company valuation went up 50x, hitting
| $10B means 500x, hitting $100B means 5000x. So your initial
| offer could be worth several millions to hundreds of millions.
| Even if you join later, when the company is valued $500M-$1B,
| you might still get 50-100x upside.
|
| The math is more complicated since usually companies raise
| multiple rounds which then dilutes the existing shareholders.
| Roughly 20% at seed/series a, and then less after that.
| qqtt wrote:
| With things like dilution mattering and stock options being
| popular vehicles for early stage start up it would be really
| interesting and elucidating to have practical examples to
| compare against.
|
| It's easy to understand a FAANG style offer in this context.
|
| You join Google in 2017, you get RSUs pegged at 800$ a share
| valuation, about 150k$ a year vesting, by 2021 those shares
| are worth 2800$ so you've earned about 2.1 million (not
| exactly as taxes come into play).
|
| You join AirBNB in 2017, valued at 30 billion, you get a
| similar offer, fast forward to today and AirBNB is now worth
| 100 billion, you might have made 2 million (again, not
| exactly, considering taxes and potential dilution). And
| AirBNB is one of Y Combinator's most successful start
| ups/exits.
|
| From some quick google searching - there are thousands of Y
| Combinator companies and only ~29 are worth one billion or
| more. Of those billion, they are all at this time late stage
| and trying to guess which up and coming Y Combinator company
| will be next to crack 1 billion is a very risky endeavour.
|
| How does the tax implication of stock options really impact
| your net gain, and does that practically move the needle for
| a comparison against a standard FAANG offer?
|
| Would be interesting to look at some cold hard numbers.
| Absolutely joining a 20M valuation YC company and sticking
| around until it grows to 1B would be incredibly lucrative -
| but how lucrative in a practical sense, given real offers?
| Dilution? Tax implications? Would love to see this analysis.
| preseedthrwwy wrote:
| throwaway for obvious reasons..
|
| I joined a seed company w/ a $10m valuation in early 2014,
| starting offer was 1%. after series a, b, c, and some
| smaller retention grants, I had about 0.4%. Left before
| fully vesting, so ended up with 0.3%. Company was acquired
| for $4b and I made $12m. After taxes, netted about $7.5m
|
| Joined another seed company with $10m valuation in 2016,
| starting offer was 3%. after a few dilutive funding rounds
| and some generous retention grants, ended up with 1.2%.
| Company also acquired for $4b and I made $50m. Will
| probably have about $35m from this one after tax.
|
| Obviously I was _incredibly_ lucky in picking those two
| companies, but maybe those numbers shed some light on
| dilution, taxes, etc. I wouldn't have made anywhere near
| that much if I'd joined those companies after series a, let
| alone b or c. I encourage anyone I know who wants to make 7
| figures to work for faang for a few years. If they want to
| make 8 figures, start a company or join as the very first
| hire (as I did) if you're not willing to take the risk of
| being a founder.
| lostdog wrote:
| Wow! What companies do you like right now ;)
| clpm4j wrote:
| This is a good 'best-case' example that anyone could hope
| for, and like you say - you probably need to be one of
| first few engineering hires to have a shot at this type
| of outcome.
| preseedthrwwy wrote:
| absolutely agree - wasn't trying to give the indication
| that I think my situation is a likely outcome
| quokkafriend wrote:
| What is next for you?!
| quokkafriend wrote:
| Yea I think this is a top 0.1% survivorship bias. Hitting
| 2 startup lotteries in a row at that kind of exit. Kudos.
| glassconclusion wrote:
| Shouldn't be this more like 0.01%? Two startups as an
| early employee and hitting almost 50M. Wow. just wow.
| devnulll wrote:
| I bet this goes the other way, especially at the exec
| level. That is, the best indicator of startup success is
| past startup success. Certainly funding is easier,
| building the team is easier, and the emotional decision
| making is easier.
|
| The phrase serial entrepreneur is often used.
| enra wrote:
| Yeah I wish YC or someone could provide some anonymized
| data on this across companies. And it's true that out of
| all startups, only probably 1% make it big. But the markets
| are growing fast and just this year there has been ~200 IPO
| which I think mostly are $1B+.
|
| From a tax perspective, RSU are probably worst. They are
| taxed on your W-2, effectively a bonus. If you make a lot,
| you pay max bracket federally and in your state. In
| California I think it can be ~54%.
|
| Joining seed/pre-seed company that hasn't done a priced
| round likely is the best. Employees get to buy shares, not
| options, at the nominal price, often $0.0001 per share.
| There is no taxes as there is no gain. After a year those
| turn in to long term shares, and you can hold them forever
| without paying any taxes. When the company is public, you
| can borrow money against it so you don't have to sell. If
| you sell, you pay long term capital gains, and if QSBS
| still exists and you hold the shares for 5 years, you have
| $10M tax free federal credit.
|
| With options, it depends on the timing and the cost to
| exercise. Joining early, and exercising options early, is
| usually also good since now you own the shares and only had
| to pay the fair market value which is 20% of the investor
| valuation. Again now you can hold the shares forever, get
| QSBS or pay long term capital gains when you eventually
| sell.
|
| If you join late, likely you should still exercise if you
| can/want to. If you don't exercise early, then you might
| have to pay taxes on the gains of the fair market value
| from the time you were granted the options and the time you
| exercised. Or you could just hold the options if the
| company allows. Then after the company is public you can
| just exercise and sell, and pay the short term capital
| gains similar to RSU.
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| I think YC has not put out information like this because
| the data would show joining a startup as a regular
| employee is not remotely worth it vs publicly traded
| companies.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| nostrademons wrote:
| "In the not-so-distant past, start ups were pretty much the
| only avenue to secure a multiple-million dollar personal
| liquidity event"
|
| I'm actually not sure this is true, and wondering if this was
| reporting bias. When a startup exits for a billion and all the
| employees get rich, you hear about it on the news, and you can
| do the equity calculation yourself based on public funding
| round press releases. When a big company quietly gives a multi-
| million-$ comp package to a valued employee, they have _zero_
| incentive to share that news with the rest of the world.
|
| My wife grew up in Silicon Valley, and somehow all of her
| friend's parents have large real estate holdings. These were
| people active in the 70s-90s, big company employees, no exits.
| But there was one guy who had a beautiful house in the Saratoga
| foothills with an artificial waterfall between his two swimming
| pools; "Oh, his dad was a rainmaker at Intel." Or another
| friend of the family who had made some key inventions at HP,
| and retired early. Or the innkeeper we met in Alaska who had
| simply worked big companies in Silicon Valley, no exits, saved
| his money, but then when he turned 40 he bought a sailboat,
| sailed around the world with his family, then when he reached
| Alaska bought 2 old warehouses and converted them into a B&B.
| noodle wrote:
| I think it's true if you add the caveat "only avenue for an
| average person". Not everyone gets the big liquidity event in
| the startup game, but also very few people actually get
| multimillion dollar comp packages at well established post-
| IPO companies despite how much it seems to get discussed
| here.
| nostrademons wrote:
| The startups that succeed do not generally have average
| early employees. Remember that founding a startup and
| successfully taking it to a large exit is a decidedly non-
| average outcome; the average startup fails miserably.
|
| I think that if you're seeking non-average wealth you
| should first strive to be non-average. There are a number
| of pathways to exceptional wealth, but all of them require
| being exceptional in some way.
| esonderegger wrote:
| One of the things I rarely see mentioned when discussing career
| prospects of startups vs large corporations is how different
| their hiring filters are.
|
| If you are self-taught, lacking credentials, and don't live in
| a major market, it can be difficult to get in the door at a
| FAANG. Whereas start-ups can be much more likely to take a
| chance on someone with a non-conventional background.
|
| So for some of us, large corporations aren't even an option
| until after we've taken that startup job and the startup has
| done well enough that people have heard of it.
| ctvo wrote:
| > _If you are self-taught, lacking credentials, and don 't
| live in a major market, it can be difficult to get in the
| door at a FAANG. Whereas start-ups can be much more likely to
| take a chance on someone with a non-conventional background._
|
| Don't self select out of these jobs. I've been an interviewer
| at FAANGs. We take talent where we can and count ourselves
| lucky.
|
| Our recruiters call everyone given enough time. Reach out to
| one directly on LinkedIn for an even better chance at an
| initial screening call. Ask for a referral from someone
| already working there in your wider network. Ask for a
| referral from Blind. Ask for a referral from HN.
|
| From there it's your ability to pass the interview, not any
| set of credentials (different thread please on the interview
| process).
| leetcrew wrote:
| I just went through the job search again, and I found the
| exact opposite to be true. for context, I went to a
| regionally-known (at best) state university and have just a
| few years of experience at a small company you've probably
| never heard of. so not quite "self-taught" but pretty far
| from what you'd think of as a the typical FAANG employee.
|
| I applied to at least twenty roles at startups and
| small/medium-sized companies that seemed like a good fit for
| my skills and wrote thoughtful cover letters for each one.
| not a single one of those employers responded, not even to
| reject.
|
| I also applied to a couple FAANGs, thinking it was a pretty
| long shot. but I ended up getting two on-sites, one of which
| I converted to an offer. there's definitely some truth to
| what people say about the unreasonable/irrelevant DS/algo
| problems, but I found it comforting to know for once what I
| was actually being assessed on.
|
| not sure whether I got lucky with the FAANGs, unlucky with
| the smaller companies, or what, but just thought I'd share
| that anecdote. not the outcome I was expecting at the
| beginning of the process.
| quokkafriend wrote:
| My equity grants as a non-eng (but involved in prod dev) have
| ranged from 0.05% to 0.6% over the course of 10 years in
| startups (age 25-35). All Series A to Series B.
|
| My take is that unless you are very good at judging leadership
| teams and company prospects, that joining a FAANG or a Series
| C+ scale-up (and even that takes thoughtful research and luck)
| is the better play.
|
| Early stage at my past grant levels has to hit a unicorn
| valuation for the equity to match FAANG packages. I'm not even
| sure a $1B exit is enough after dilution, investor preferences,
| and god forbid down/flat rounds. Certainly not at the grants
| that I started at in my career.
|
| Plus keep in mind that FAANG stock also appreciates. I see some
| folks not accounting for that growth and only startup valuation
| growth. Comp packages for mid level ENG and PMs are 400-500k /
| yr, not even including appreciation!
| hinkley wrote:
| Maybe it's like people using their tax refund as a savings
| strategy. If you're good with your money then fixing your
| withholding and increasing your savings rate nets you more
| money in the long term. But you have to have self control to
| save the money instead of just fighting temptation once a
| year.
| akomtu wrote:
| A typical 4-year vesting plan at 500k/year gives 2M in
| "nominal" dollars. 2x that to account for stock market
| growth, 2x for work life balance (startups demand 2x more of
| your time than FANG), 3x for dilution and other startup
| shenanigans, 5x for the risk (how many C series get bought
| for 1B within 5 years?), and you need a 60x2M offer from a
| startup to just match FANG. 120M looks outrageous only
| because it's fake money: 95% of the time you won't get
| anything.
| fatnoah wrote:
| I spent the better part of 17 years at startups, with grants
| ranging from 0.2% all the way to 1% (VP Eng in a Series C+).
| The latter exited, but options were worth $0 due to
| liquidation preferences. I did get a cash bonus equal to
| about 2x my salary, so that was nice...it was also about the
| same as the sum of my last two stock vests (i.e. 6 months) at
| the FAANG I'm currently at, and whose stock price has doubled
| since I joined. I currently make 4X what I made at the height
| of my startup career.
|
| Unless I'm coming in hot with good equity and an imminent IPO
| OR I don't need/want the money at all, I can't see going to
| back to startup life. (I also wouldn't trade that startup
| experience away, either)
| hinkley wrote:
| I learned long ago that the most successful tech company I
| know is probably not the one I work for. Also that layoffs
| tend to follow drops in the stock price.
|
| I don't buy shares on margin, so why would I want my nest
| egg invested in the company I work for? If I get laid off
| I'm poor twice over.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| I don't know about Facebook, but my friends at Google seem to
| have terrible work life balance. Seems like they only get a
| breather when they're between projects.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Google in general has pretty good work/life balance.
|
| I think the challenge is that you're responsible for
| _launching_ on a feature team at Google, and the lead up to a
| launch has a ton of work that needs to be done often under
| tight deadline pressure, plus the codebase is crazy complex.
| If you 're a self-motivated, detail-oriented, slightly
| obsessive individual of the type Google loves to hire, you're
| not going to rest until it's all done.
|
| Infrastructure/logging/analysis/reliability teams have it
| much better at Google, in terms of work-life balance, but the
| tradeoff is that it's harder to justify your impact when it
| comes to promotion time.
| joshuamorton wrote:
| This, I've basically never felt external pressure from
| management or deadlines in my job.
|
| I have however, on more than one occasion, found myself up
| far too late (or in the pre-pandemic times having nearly
| missed the last bus home) because _I just want to figure
| out what is causing this damn bug_. It could wait until
| tomorrow, no one would care if I waited until tomorrow,
| there is no pressure for me to fix it today. But I want to
| solve the problem.
| mcgingras wrote:
| I have an offer that vests over 6 years with a 1.5 year cliff. Is
| that normal? I'm used to 4 years 1 year cliff, but the CEO said
| that 1.5/6 are common for companies that "want employees who care
| about the long term"
| majormajor wrote:
| No, have had multiple recent better offers than that. They're
| trying to rip you off.
|
| If they want to keep you motivated for the long term even if
| value isn't increasing rapidly then they can do bonuses,
| refreshers, etc.
| [deleted]
| matheist wrote:
| I've never heard of 1.5/6 being a thing. Would be a red flag
| for me but of course I only have the context you mentioned.
|
| Refresher grants could also motivate employees to stick around
| for the long term!
| devnulll wrote:
| No, I don't believe that's normal. That sounds like a CEO
| trying to take advantage of the labor force.
| mcgingras wrote:
| Thanks everyone, that's what I was thinking as well, but I'm
| fairly new to startups so I wasn't sure.
| xtracto wrote:
| Mhmm, I wouldn't put it like GP (someone wanting to take
| advantage of...). The large majority of employments DO NOT
| give stock options. Shit, in most countries that's unheard
| of (in Mexico for example, someone with a similar offer
| would think of the stock options as the cherry on the
| cake).
|
| Nonetheless, given YOUR market, you should check whether
| the other parts of the compensation they are giving you are
| right. For example, there was the case of Mailchimp a
| couple of days ago: They gave no stock to their employees.
| However, in theory their compensation package was good in
| other ways. So if the company is offering you a good salary
| + benefits (what about 401k matching? PTO? sick days? gym
| membership, WFH and whatnot), that will give you the full
| picture.
| freewilly1040 wrote:
| 4 year vest, 1 year cliff is the standard, and even that is
| going away at some places.
|
| An employer who wants to keep you will demonstrate that by
| compensating you well and giving you an opportunity to augment
| your skills.
|
| This offerer sounds like someone who has experienced turnover
| problems and has decided that it's everyone else's fault.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-09-24 23:00 UTC)