I think this is a curious discussion. While this topic is probably not relevant to this thread, I have always wondered why SH care about this?
I find it interesting that SH make such a big deal out of escrow and founders post IPO. I understand why it happens in the first 2 years after IPO, but beyond that, surely the Founder is no longer the only key person in the business and that the Founder could be replaced without to much disruption. Even if he extends his escrow for another year, whose to say he stays in the business, he may resign and ride it out, he maybe pushed out and still have his shares.
1. What is the right time for the Founder or other Directors able to sell shares and bank some $$, is it after 2 years or 5 years,
2. When is the Founder no longer relevant to the success of the business and become the CEO/MD, just like any other listed company, CEOs come and go all the time
3. What if the CEO resigned and sold their shares, is the business all of a sudden crap, did all the reasons you purchased shares vanish, did you buy the CEO or the product?
3. Why does this have such an impact on SH sentiment?
Personally I could not give a shit if DM resigned or sold shares, I purchased shares because of the product and market potential, not because of DM or the Board, these people can be replaced, maybe by a better a person(s). IMO none of them will extend their escrow, why would they?
Founders build businesses to make $$, they spot a gap in the market, they have a solution that fills the gap, get angel and seed investors and off they go, its not because they are passionate about the product, who could be passionate about little white boxes that sit on power boards, they go through all this pain and agony to make money, pure and simple.
Anyway, just curious to know why people care about escrow so much?
