In-House opportunity in non-desired location Forum

[Anonymous User]

Please don't quote. Current 6th year biglaw associate in SoCal (M&A/Corporate). Could do the firm thing forever, might not make partner, but counsel/lateraling seems easy enough to make a career out of it. Love the flexibility, hate the bad time (had 4 350+ hour months last year (also had a couple sub 100), billed about 2300), probably bad for my health in the bad times. A former mentor of mine is a GC and looking for an Assistant GC, so I said I would at least interview, was not looking at opportunities. If I could chose GC or law firm partner I would choose GC 10 out of 10 times.

Got the offer. $220 base, $55k annual bonus, $100k annual stock grants (all straight 3 year vest, so won't see a penny of this until 3 years). I think the comp offer is great. Here is my issue...I love SoCal and this offer is in Houston...in oil and gas. My wife is on-board so I am home more, but also knows nothing about Houston and has said that this decision is on me (she is a stay at home mom). I worry about the industry as a whole. I lived in Texas for a couple years after UG, not Houston, but understand the summers are tough. The sell here is it may be my best way into the in-house world and one day a GC gig. All the offers in SoCal don't pay anywhere near this, and in my time I have probably 50+ data points from associates that left.

Am I crazy to move to a place with worse weather and lifestyle (probably) for an opportunity like this? I know this is very personal, just curious what others think. Please don't quote.

[trebekismyhero]

Congrats, that is a great offer. As you said this is a personal decision. I would take your wife and go to Houston for a long weekend and get a feel for the city before deciding. The only other thing besides location is industry, if you really have no desire to work long term in oil & gas, then think about that.

[papermateflair]

The weather may be worse, but why would your lifestyle be worse in Houston? I assume with the 350 hour months you're working you don't have a ton of time to enjoy SoCal anyway, and so while you may not get to surf or go to the beach or whatever you like to do in California, being able to spend more time with your family and not having the bad months that you say are bad for your health sounds like a lifestyle upgrade to me. Without the stock you'd be making $275k/year in Houston (and once your stock vests you'll be doing even better), which should be able to afford your family a pretty nice life. But I say all of this as a person who hasn't spent a ton of time in Houston.

[Anonymous User]

Thanks, all. I agree on the O&G hang up. Honestly, if it wasn't for that I probably would have been in already. I don't think the industry is going anywhere, I just don't see times getting easier for that industry either. I also don't know if it would be hard to transition out, a public company is a public company, I imagine industry doesn't actually matter all that much.

As to lifestyle, agree that during the bad times, it can only get better. But during the good months where I bill 150 or less, I spend every Saturday morning at the beach or some boardwalk with the Fam enjoying the ocean breeze and outdoor lifestyle. I think that is what I am concerned about, everything in SoCal is outside, we eat dinner in our backyard 2-3 nights a week basically year round. I imagine with more intense weather, and humidity, that is not as much the case. But yes, looking at real estate, we will be in a much better financial situation even with lower cash comp. You can get a really nice place there under $1mm, in SoCal we rent a house near the beach since buying the same would be astronomical.

Also, I am a big beach and ski person. I suppose I can fly to both of those things from Houston, but its nice being 5 mins from the beach and 2 hours from the mountains.

[Anonymous User]

Hello fellow SoCal resident.

As others said, it’s a personal decision. Location is huge to me personally. Hell, I turned down a great in-house offer within SoCal because I didn’t want to live in the area.

Comp and exit isn’t enough, IMO. You’ll be living there after all - what’s the point of a better work life balance if you don’t love where you live?

[texanslimjim]

Unless your industry hang up is ethical I would not let it stop you. Oil and Gas may not have much of a future on the 100-year timescale, but it is not going to disappear in the next five years or even the next twenty. There will be non-O&G opportunities you can lateral to in the future if you're really concerned about it.

If outdoors stuff really is your life it's a very hard decision, though, because that's really Houston's big weakness. The weather not so much -- I think if you love being outside that much you'll adapt to the weather (if you previously lived in or east of Austin, it's the same kind of weather in Houston). But outdoor amenities might be a bigger problem. Houston has nothing besides a few good parks and some artificial lakes. The only stuff within an hour's drive are the mediocre Galveston Bay and beach and the Piney Woods forest parks that are probably the weakest and most boring in the state. Texas has a lot of good stuff, but it's all at least a day trip away from Houston. In your new role day-trip style outings and flying to go skiing might be feasible, but it will be a large adjustment compared to just living in the middle of everything and being able to do whatever you want on a whim.

You might also want to consider whether cultural and food opportunities might be able to fill some of the outdoors part of your life, because Houston is quite strong in those areas. I agree with the above poster that it might be a good idea to visit the city for a few days to get a better idea of what it is rather beyond just "bad weather and no outdoors amenities."

[Anonymous User]

Hello fellow SoCal resident.

As others said, it’s a personal decision. Location is huge to me personally. Hell, I turned down a great in-house offer within SoCal because I didn’t want to live in the area.

Comp and exit isn’t enough, IMO. You’ll be living there after all - what’s the point of a better work life balance if you don’t love where you live?

What was the comp like? Another major concern with SoCal is the exits don't pay. I have never seen an associate (or "counsel" if they didn't make partner) leave for something that was not a firm that pays this much. They always took a much more substantive pay cut. Salary almost always in the 150-200 range if public. After state income tax, it is just hard to not think about how you make more in a more affordable city than a less affordable one. But then I think if I just stay at a firm forever, making 500+, money isn't really a huge issue. Can you tell I am no where near a decision?

[Anonymous User]

Unless your industry hang up is ethical I would not let it stop you. Oil and Gas may not have much of a future on the 100-year timescale, but it is not going to disappear in the next five years or even the next twenty. There will be non-O&G opportunities you can lateral to in the future if you're really concerned about it.

If outdoors stuff really is your life it's a very hard decision, though, because that's really Houston's big weakness. The weather not so much -- I think if you love being outside that much you'll adapt to the weather (if you previously lived in or east of Austin, it's the same kind of weather in Houston). But outdoor amenities might be a bigger problem. Houston has nothing besides a few good parks and some artificial lakes. The only stuff within an hour's drive are the mediocre Galveston Bay and beach and the Piney Woods forest parks that are probably the weakest and most boring in the state. Texas has a lot of good stuff, but it's all at least a day trip away from Houston. In your new role day-trip style outings and flying to go skiing might be feasible, but it will be a large adjustment compared to just living in the middle of everything and being able to do whatever you want on a whim.

You might also want to consider whether cultural and food opportunities might be able to fill some of the outdoors part of your life, because Houston is quite strong in those areas. I agree with the above poster that it might be a good idea to visit the city for a few days to get a better idea of what it is rather beyond just "bad weather and no outdoors amenities."

This is helpful. I have been to Houston a couple times, including the interview. The weather was actually great (winter time is nice in TX). I agree, it seems like making the switch one day from O&G to non-O&G won't be too hard, but I also don't think its going anywhere (and as I mentioned, it seems to pay more than tech, and substantially more than entertainment - don't get me started on those offers). The food I have had in Houston has been substantially better than 90% of CA places, I will give it that. For me, I think about it more toward what will my wife and kiddo do during the day/etc. Right now I work a lot, so they do much on their own, season passes to Disney, so many Dodgers games, beach days, etc.

[texanslimjim]

Houston's pretty good for kid activities, especially if you have good income. Tons of museums. Lots of indoor sports and hobbies to choose from. It's never too hot to swim, and there are multiple water parks to choose from. Galveston isn't the prettiest beach but it's good enough for kid's beach day. The only major sports league that's missing is NHL, and the NFL and MLB stadiums are covered and usually closed and air conditioned.

There's no Disneyland and that's hard to replace (nearest major theme parks are the Six Flags parks in San Antonio and Dallas) but otherwise they shouldn't suffer too much in Houston.

[nealric]

Op, I am in-house in Houston oil and gas. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about the industry, city, lifestyle, etc. I may be able to answer company specific questions depending on the company.

As others have mentioned, it's very much a personal lifestyle choice as much as a career choice. Houston has its highs and lows. It's a great place to raise a family with good career options, but it certainly lacks in terms of natural beauty or outdoor activities. There's a decent amount of stuff accessible as a day or weekend trip, but you won't be able to hike up a mountain on a whim. Galveston gets a lot of flak, but it's actually a reasonably nice beach if get away from the more crowded parts. It's not clear turquoise Caribbean water, but the water is at least warm.

[Anonymous User]

Current biglaw assoc at a similar year to you who's been looking at in-house in SoCal for a while.

Assuming not flame and that the bonus/equity isn't illusory, that is like a top 1% in-house offer. If you're done with biglaw, take it and don't look back. Try to lateral back to your desired location in a few years if you really hate Texas.

Even unicorn exits in socal (like the very few counsel positions that open each year at the Google/Facebook LA satellites) wont come close to that kind of comp, plus there's no guarantee you'll land one. More likely is some mid-100s all-in entertainment job.

[Anonymous User]

Op, I am in-house in Houston oil and gas. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions about the industry, city, lifestyle, etc. I may be able to answer company specific questions depending on the company.

As others have mentioned, it's very much a personal lifestyle choice as much as a career choice. Houston has its highs and lows. It's a great place to raise a family with good career options, but it certainly lacks in terms of natural beauty or outdoor activities. There's a decent amount of stuff accessible as a day or weekend trip, but you won't be able to hike up a mountain on a whim. Galveston gets a lot of flak, but it's actually a reasonably nice beach if get away from the more crowded parts. It's not clear turquoise Caribbean water, but the water is at least warm.

Thank you, I might take you up on that. I am actually using a friends account, but may set one up, this has been very helpful.

[Anonymous User]

Current biglaw assoc at a similar year to you who's been looking at in-house in SoCal for a while.

Assuming not flame and that the bonus/equity isn't illusory, that is like a top 1% in-house offer. If you're done with biglaw, take it and don't look back. Try to lateral back to your desired location in a few years if you really hate Texas.

Even unicorn exits in socal (like the very few counsel positions that open each year at the Google/Facebook LA satellites) wont come close to that kind of comp, plus there's no guarantee you'll land one. More likely is some mid-100s all-in entertainment job.

Please don't quote this one either since providing some specifics. So the bonus is a target based on Company financial metrics (I asked about last 3 years, and it was 100%, 75% and 80% respectively). The stock is all time based, so you get the stock, you just can't touch it for 3 years. If you leave before it vests, you lose it (unless you are fired without cause, in which case it all vests). If the stock price falls during those 3 years obviously you lose value, if the stock goes up you gain value.

As to the SoCal in-house offers, this has been my experience as well, which is why I am considering this. Could I do private practice forever? Sure. Do I want to? No. Am I willing to take a salary below $200k in a place like SoCal? hell no.

[Anonymous User]

OP here, just an update. Went to Houston for a couple days, stayed with a friend there (the one who said I should check this site out). Leaning toward taking the offer. Spoke with a Partner I am close with, he said might as well give it a shot and move back if I have regrets. I will be going out one more time and meeting with a couple other people in the office. Wanted to thank everyone for the feedback, I did some digging with other contacts around town here and in TX. This seems like an extreme offer for SoCal, but not that out of the norm for Houston (I still find this very strange).

[Anonymous User]

OP here, just an update. Went to Houston for a couple days, stayed with a friend there (the one who said I should check this site out). Leaning toward taking the offer. Spoke with a Partner I am close with, he said might as well give it a shot and move back if I have regrets. I will be going out one more time and meeting with a couple other people in the office. Wanted to thank everyone for the feedback, I did some digging with other contacts around town here and in TX. This seems like an extreme offer for SoCal, but not that out of the norm for Houston (I still find this very strange).

Hi OP,

I am a SoCal native. I fully realize that you may be burnt out from law firm life, but I also encourage you to think about a few things--(i) this is not binary. That is to say, your only choices are not (a) stay in biglaw forever or (b) take offer in Houston. While the SoCal in-house market is somewhat limited, the California in-house environment is incredibly robust, particularly if you are willing to work in tech. There are some highly acquisitive tech companies (FB, Adobe, Cisco, Google, Visa, Intel). You could also pivot to PE M&A (if you're not already in it) and go in-house to a fund. (ii) I think that is a good offer, but not absurdly high, given tech salaries. That may be high for Texas (and you could live quite well on that in Texas) it's not a high offer for CA. Another thing to consider is whether you have been able to get onto the property ladder, in a school district you like, in SoCal. This is easier in Houston suburbs, harder in Houston proper, as the schools are pretty weak. And it's hard to really feel like you're "building a life" for yourself in SoCal when the COL is very high. You're taking a pay cut as a 6th year in biglaw.

Would you be happier if you could find an M&A or more of a corp generalist in-house role for a similar or slightly higher salary and you could stay in SoCal (either moving to Silicon Beach or San Diego or OC)? Ask yourself what your ideal third option would be, and you'll know more as to whether, in your gut, this fits.

If you're really burnt out, practice saying no, let your partners know you're looking to move on in the next year or two (if you do company rep where going in-house might be a thing--otherwise, stay silent). Sounds like you already tipped the hat to one partner re this offer.

You may want to look at the Lawyer Whisperer blogs for more on moving inhouse, or goinhouse.com.

I almost took a firm O&G M&A job about 2 years ago. But three hilarious things happened to me in my less-than-24-hours on the ground: (1) one of the partners quoted the Bible repeatedly to me during my interview (casually!--NEVER IN MY LIFE!!!) (2) my Uber driver on the way to the airport told me that "he was packing--he's always packing because TX and "it's his right!" and (3) when I got to the airport, a well-meaning gentleman _insisted_ on lifting my rollerboard onto the TSA conveyorbelt out of chivalry, which was kind but completely ridiculous--I was wearing heels and my interview suit but the bag was empty because of such a short trip. All of those things made me think, "I'm def not in [old city] anymore...am I comfortable with this?" And the answer for me, even though I could live like a queen, was no. The answer for you might be different. GL.

[Anonymous User]

I will echo that the comp doesn’t seem crazy high. I got an offer as a 3rd year in SoCal that wasn’t too far behind considering the 3 year experience difference.

[Anonymous User]

OP here, just an update. Went to Houston for a couple days, stayed with a friend there (the one who said I should check this site out). Leaning toward taking the offer. Spoke with a Partner I am close with, he said might as well give it a shot and move back if I have regrets. I will be going out one more time and meeting with a couple other people in the office. Wanted to thank everyone for the feedback, I did some digging with other contacts around town here and in TX. This seems like an extreme offer for SoCal, but not that out of the norm for Houston (I still find this very strange).

Hi OP,

I am a SoCal native. I fully realize that you may be burnt out from law firm life, but I also encourage you to think about a few things--(i) this is not binary. That is to say, your only choices are not (a) stay in biglaw forever or (b) take offer in Houston. While the SoCal in-house market is somewhat limited, the California in-house environment is incredibly robust, particularly if you are willing to work in tech. There are some highly acquisitive tech companies (FB, Adobe, Cisco, Google, Visa, Intel). You could also pivot to PE M&A (if you're not already in it) and go in-house to a fund. (ii) I think that is a good offer, but not absurdly high, given tech salaries. That may be high for Texas (and you could live quite well on that in Texas) it's not a high offer for CA. Another thing to consider is whether you have been able to get onto the property ladder, in a school district you like, in SoCal. This is easier in Houston suburbs, harder in Houston proper, as the schools are pretty weak. And it's hard to really feel like you're "building a life" for yourself in SoCal when the COL is very high. You're taking a pay cut as a 6th year in biglaw.

Would you be happier if you could find an M&A or more of a corp generalist in-house role for a similar or slightly higher salary and you could stay in SoCal (either moving to Silicon Beach or San Diego or OC)? Ask yourself what your ideal third option would be, and you'll know more as to whether, in your gut, this fits.

If you're really burnt out, practice saying no, let your partners know you're looking to move on in the next year or two (if you do company rep where going in-house might be a thing--otherwise, stay silent). Sounds like you already tipped the hat to one partner re this offer.

You may want to look at the Lawyer Whisperer blogs for more on moving inhouse, or goinhouse.com.

I almost took a firm O&G M&A job about 2 years ago. But three hilarious things happened to me in my less-than-24-hours on the ground: (1) one of the partners quoted the Bible repeatedly to me during my interview (casually!--NEVER IN MY LIFE!!!) (2) my Uber driver on the way to the airport told me that "he was packing--he's always packing because TX and "it's his right!" and (3) when I got to the airport, a well-meaning gentleman _insisted_ on lifting my rollerboard onto the TSA conveyorbelt out of chivalry, which was kind but completely ridiculous--I was wearing heels and my interview suit but the bag was empty because of such a short trip. All of those things made me think, "I'm def not in [old city] anymore...am I comfortable with this?" And the answer for me, even though I could live like a queen, was no. The answer for you might be different. GL.

OP here, thank you for the insight! No, actually not that burned out, just don't want to do it forever. I see every partner in biglaw and think "wow, you have a lot of money but your life is absolutely miserable" and I don't want that for me. I agree I could go work for a FB, Google, Amazon, etc. and be one of over 100 lawyers, but I would never do that. Unless I am getting the GC or AGC job, I would not be interested which is why I had a dilemma (also don't want to take the risk of a start-up, I guess I am too picky). The question here really turned into whether I was willing to give up SoCal for what I think is my best shot at becoming a GC. Also, the comp here is much higher than FB, Google and Amazon, I had an offer at 1 of the above and have friends at each of the 3. None of them have any shot at making GC...ever. I am not sure what offers you have seen that compare, but I would be very curious to hear about it.

Schools...we live zoned to a great elementary, good enough for us for now. Houston, yeah from what I have seen the schools blow. Would prob move to the burbs buy a mcmansion for 500k once school starts for the kiddos haha. I would not be interested in NorCal (obviously, lol, that place is worse than TX for SoCalians ) but would be open to LA, OC and SD. My thought here is that gaining public company experience prob won't stop me from looking back in CA for my next move. I mean, M&A is M&A, securities offerings are securities offerings and public company requirements don't change much from industry to industry. Then again, maybe it will be harder than I think and I am just trying to sell myself, who knows.

As to your experience, that is actually hilarious. Like I said, I lived in TX for a couple years and I never experienced anything even remotely like this. Maybe it was a sign for you that it was a bad fit! haha

[Anonymous User]

I will echo that the comp doesn’t seem crazy high. I got an offer as a 3rd year in SoCal that wasn’t too far behind considering the 3 year experience difference.

I would be interested to hear more about this. Everything I have heard is like $50k+ base behind (so in the 160 range), lower bonus and much lower grant. The other thing to think about in-house is the raises are much slower usually. So if you start at 160, in 3 years its unlikely you will be at 200 (unlike biglaw raises).

[Anonymous User]

Don't want to out myself, (I'm the poster from a few up, who grew up in SoCal). I think you're not very educated about what working in tech is like--I work in Tech, at a Series D company, backed by premier VCs (like large, corporate VCs and some of the top Valley VCs). My job is very stable. Like--this company will exit or get bought in the next 2-3 years. I'm a c/o 2016 grad (but with a lot of prior w/e in Finance). My base is negligibly behind my biglaw class year, I have a ton of options (which I have no cash outlay for...ever due to reasons specific to my co), and I have a good cash bonus. And yes, I'm in NorCal. I also get weekends off and work sane hours and push ample work to outside counsel so that my life remains sane.

There's plenty of jobs in SoCal at Tech Cos where you can have real responsibility. At my prev tech job, I was the only lawyer at a co with a billion dollar rev run rate, and I had to figure out how to scale the legal dept and deal with everything--commercial, privacy, venture equity and debt financings, employment, IMM, patent mgmt...it was an education. You can join a late stage startup and have a ton of responsibility.

I'd argue, in fact, that due to the cyclical nature of O&G, that your job is less secure in O&G than it is in tech. So go check out Silicon Beach...or all of the other VP Legal/AGC/Sr. Corp Counsel jobs in SoCal. You really owe it to yourself before you uproot the fam. GL!

[FND]

Please don't quote. Current 6th year biglaw associate in SoCal (M&A/Corporate). Could do the firm thing forever, might not make partner, but counsel/lateraling seems easy enough to make a career out of it. Love the flexibility, hate the bad time (had 4 350+ hour months last year (also had a couple sub 100), billed about 2300), probably bad for my health in the bad times. A former mentor of mine is a GC and looking for an Assistant GC, so I said I would at least interview, was not looking at opportunities. If I could chose GC or law firm partner I would choose GC 10 out of 10 times.

Got the offer. $220 base, $55k annual bonus, $100k annual stock grants (all straight 3 year vest, so won't see a penny of this until 3 years). I think the comp offer is great. Here is my issue...I love SoCal and this offer is in Houston...in oil and gas. My wife is on-board so I am home more, but also knows nothing about Houston and has said that this decision is on me (she is a stay at home mom). I worry about the industry as a whole. I lived in Texas for a couple years after UG, not Houston, but understand the summers are tough. The sell here is it may be my best way into the in-house world and one day a GC gig. All the offers in SoCal don't pay anywhere near this, and in my time I have probably 50+ data points from associates that left.

Am I crazy to move to a place with worse weather and lifestyle (probably) for an opportunity like this? I know this is very personal, just curious what others think. Please don't quote.

Assuming Cravath Scale, as a sixth year you make $305k base + $90k bonus, for $395k all-in. I'm assuming no or negligible origination bonus because you say you might not make partner.

The offer you're getting is $220k base + $55k bonus + $100k stock grants, or $375k total. Vesting is a way to keep you chained there for the long term; alternatively, you could look at it as $275k with a guaranteed $100k raise. Cost of living in Houston is significantly less than Cali, so that's like getting free money too.

Anyway, if you're happy with your job & life and you don't want to move to Texas, don't.
But, if you want to go in-house, it's a great opportunity, one that might not come up again. Personally, if my spouse was on board, I'd jump at the opportunity.

There's one more thing to consider. You said you might not make partner, but you think you can easily lateral or go of-counsel. I'm not so sure. When times are good, there's plenty of opportunities, but if the economy takes a turn for the worse, why would a firm keep an 8th year associate, when a 6th year associate is significantly cheaper and can do pretty much the same thing? When times are tough, positions dry up, and non-partner older attorneys are expensive and expendable.

I know for a fact that certain specialties are in high demand right now, but that's because 5 years ago nobody was going into those fields, because there was no work then. On the flip side, I don't know your specialty, but if the situation changes and suddenly there's a lot less work in your field, you won't find anywhere to lateral, and you better pray your partners don't send you packing.

[PeanutsNJam]

Pretty sure that economic downturns hit juniors the hardest, as they are the most replaceable.

Senior associate job insecurity stems from increasing performance demand (not just hours, but quality). Seniors get pushed out; juniors do not. Juniors get laid off; seniors typically do not. If you survive till your 8th year at Cravath, you've proven you're a difficult-to-replace, skilled associate. Doesn't mean you'll make partner, but it means you're pulling your weight.

[nealric]

I'd argue, in fact, that due to the cyclical nature of O&G, that your job is less secure in O&G than it is in tech.

Tech can be cyclical but for different reasons. Startups are highly dependent on capital. They can't survive long if funding dries up, and they often don't have the option of getting bought or going public. Folks in tech had quite the rough go of it in the early 00s and just after the financial crisis. I imagine big tech is more resilient, but bigger companies tend to be more stable in any industry.

Oil is of course subject to commodity prices, but those swings tend to hurt the folks on the ground harder than the HQ office folks. You can stop drilling new wells in times of low prices, but you can't stop running the office. It's also worse in the oilfield services sector than for the E&Ps themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying oil is better than tech by any means. The industries have distinct and different upsides/downsides. A lot of it really comes down to location.

[Anonymous User]

I'd argue, in fact, that due to the cyclical nature of O&G, that your job is less secure in O&G than it is in tech.

Tech can be cyclical but for different reasons. Startups are highly dependent on capital. They can't survive long if funding dries up, and they often don't have the option of getting bought or going public. Folks in tech had quite the rough go of it in the early 00s and just after the financial crisis. I imagine big tech is more resilient, but bigger companies tend to be more stable in any industry.

Oil is of course subject to commodity prices, but those swings tend to hurt the folks on the ground harder than the HQ office folks. You can stop drilling new wells in times of low prices, but you can't stop running the office. It's also worse in the oilfield services sector than for the E&Ps themselves.

Yeah--again the poster from SoCal originally--you quoted me here. Not to hijack--I am old who went to law school late. I lived through the first tech bubble when I graduated (2001) and the financial crisis (in tech, in SV--I worked in venture and shut down many a company). My late stage company is backed by VCs like Salesforce Ventures. They literally have oodles of capital. They may tighten spigots, but our company is past the "will they make it or not" hurdle at this point--we're going to make it. Your average seed/A/B company when the spigots get turned off--they don't have a venture debt line to draw and investors who want to throw good money after (likely unproven) bad. They sometimes don't make it. What I'm trying to say is--we're not the next webvan or Pets.com or Zume Pizza.

O&G is very cyclical, and as with all M&A, when your currency is unclear or worth less (stock price is fluctuating to down), deals die. But also when an industry becomes cheap, if you're at one of the big daddies, might be a great time to snap up all the struggling companies. So hard to know how this would go.

Last, someone up above noted that the all-in offer was 375. Not true--the options vest over 3 years, so you need to shave 66K off that per year...you can't count it all up front. Hopefully the strike is quite low now and they'll be really worth much more in 3 years

Let's all pray no downturns, even though all signs point to the opposite in the S-M term....

[nealric]

Last, someone up above noted that the all-in offer was 375. Not true--the options vest over 3 years, so you need to shave 66K off that per year...you can't count it all up front. Hopefully the strike is quite low now and they'll be really worth much more in 3 years

Most companies in this space don't do options for rank and file employees. Instead, they do restricted stock grants, with the number of shares equal to the intended value at the time of grant. I'm not sure shaving $66k is the right way to value it. You need to risk adjust based on the reasonable likelihood of your departure prior to vesting.

I almost took a firm O&G M&A job about 2 years ago. But three hilarious things happened to me in my less-than-24-hours on the ground: (1) one of the partners quoted the Bible repeatedly to me during my interview (casually!--NEVER IN MY LIFE!!!) (2) my Uber driver on the way to the airport told me that "he was packing--he's always packing because TX and "it's his right!" and (3) when I got to the airport, a well-meaning gentleman _insisted_ on lifting my rollerboard onto the TSA conveyorbelt out of chivalry, which was kind but completely ridiculous--I was wearing heels and my interview suit but the bag was empty because of such a short trip. All of those things made me think, "I'm def not in [old city] anymore...am I comfortable with this?" And the answer for me, even though I could live like a queen, was no. The answer for you might be different. GL.

1) I've been working in Houston for the better part of a decade and never heard anybody quote the bible in the workplace. I did hear someone quote it when I lived in New York City though.

2) You got a weirdo uber driver. Never had anything like this happen ever. It's quite rare for people to open carry in and around Houston.

3) I've seen this attitude in many places in the U.S. I don't think you are more or less likely to experience it in Houston.

[Anonymous User]

I'd argue, in fact, that due to the cyclical nature of O&G, that your job is less secure in O&G than it is in tech.

Tech can be cyclical but for different reasons. Startups are highly dependent on capital. They can't survive long if funding dries up, and they often don't have the option of getting bought or going public. Folks in tech had quite the rough go of it in the early 00s and just after the financial crisis. I imagine big tech is more resilient, but bigger companies tend to be more stable in any industry.

Oil is of course subject to commodity prices, but those swings tend to hurt the folks on the ground harder than the HQ office folks. You can stop drilling new wells in times of low prices, but you can't stop running the office. It's also worse in the oilfield services sector than for the E&Ps themselves.

Yeah--again the poster from SoCal originally--you quoted me here. Not to hijack--I am old who went to law school late. I lived through the first tech bubble when I graduated (2001) and the financial crisis (in tech, in SV--I worked in venture and shut down many a company). My late stage company is backed by VCs like Salesforce Ventures. They literally have oodles of capital. They may tighten spigots, but our company is past the "will they make it or not" hurdle at this point--we're going to make it. Your average seed/A/B company when the spigots get turned off--they don't have a venture debt line to draw and investors who want to throw good money after (likely unproven) bad. They sometimes don't make it. What I'm trying to say is--we're not the next webvan or Pets.com or Zume Pizza.

O&G is very cyclical, and as with all M&A, when your currency is unclear or worth less (stock price is fluctuating to down), deals die. But also when an industry becomes cheap, if you're at one of the big daddies, might be a great time to snap up all the struggling companies. So hard to know how this would go.

Last, someone up above noted that the all-in offer was 375. Not true--the options vest over 3 years, so you need to shave 66K off that per year...you can't count it all up front. Hopefully the strike is quite low now and they'll be really worth much more in 3 years

Let's all pray no downturns, even though all signs point to the opposite in the S-M term....

OP here, yeah this is RSUs (no options). So you get the number of shares you were granted so long as you are still there 3 years later (or if you are fired without cause or acquired). So I guess year 1 the cash comp is $275, second year is $275 and third year is $375 +/- any change in stock price. Then after that you should have a full vest every year. So really, big pay cut for 2 years, not so much after that.