Jan 9, 2025

The Culver City, Calif. RIA custodian let people go across spectrum of disciplines with hires focused on 'engineering, AI and go-to-market,' Jason Wenk explains Author Brooke Southall January 7, 2025 at 8:12 PM Keith Girard contributed to the editing of this article. January 8, 2025 — 2:09 AM Mr Wenk continues to be quite the controversial CEO...if these decisions were not cost related...why let them go at all? Things do not look too bright for them...sinking ship Brian Murphy January 8, 2025 — 3:37 AM An unnamed source who themselves was let go, explained that the company isn't growing...and also that the company is mean for not allowing them to go to the annual shindig.TBH, at least 10% of most every company are resource sucks. The sooner mgmt recognizes who they are and the quicker they let them go, the better. My guess is you're going to see more and more of this economic pruning in 2025. To me this sounds like a wise managerial move. You're either moving forward or falling behind. That said, it's an absolute abomination that those let go left with hurt feelings. Shannon Fung, CPA January 8, 2025 — 7:39 AM Brian Murphy please, u seem to lack basic reading comprehension. Jobs could have been saved if not for this shindig. Jason Wenks comments reek of bullshit and typical PR defense to me. I tend to take the side of impacted workers rather than narcissistic leaders!U Should go read the articles about RTO and the Glassdoor reviews. He has a negative reputation and seems sociopathic. IMO he is freaking out about Robinhood + TPMR acquisition and is restructuring for this reason, along with cost issues.He raves about growth as every startup does. But if you have for example 300 million in revenue but 350 million in expense, who cares? He didn’t even mention that bit. Curious Farah K January 8, 2025 — 8:41 AM everything ive read online screams we shouldn’t take the words of Jason seriously, he seems unhinged. forced RTO is already a sign of really bad leadership. add in layoffs and you’ve got hot garbage sitting on the top of the pyramid. curious to know why every startup that brags about record growth never discusses costs and losses? convinced this was both strategic and cost driven Brian Murphy January 8, 2025 — 6:50 PM Shannon - some jobs were not meant to be saved. The goal of a venture backed company is not to employ as many people as possible, it's to build a competitive & profitable company. If the 10% let go were doing things of value for the company, they would not have been let go. Mukesh M. Malhotra January 8, 2025 — 7:20 PM red flag: he did not mention cost at all,only percentages growth. these workers were let go to cut down on the costs I am certain. Ceo response seems to lack empathy a lot, red flag. green flag: reogrs are necessary to hit success, and the company seems desperate for that and willing to do whatevr needed to get it. Jason LinkedIn comments say not all were performances based on, so both cost and new strategy played role. GG January 8, 2025 — 8:28 PM Former Altruist employee here who left a while ago due to the strict RTO mandate, moving cross- country made no sense for my familia. Altruist is definitely growing from a metrics POV, no doubt, but internally the company had been struggling with growth for a long time. Retention was an issue, and so were the lack of career growth opportunities. Culture sucked, and brown-nosing kept you in good graces. While Jason had been a terrible leader during my time, I do think these changes were needed and he did the right thing. Must restructure and realign to compete with the monsters that are looming to dominate (looking at you, Robinhood). However, to suggest that this was not cost-driven at all is comedic. A leader can try to save face but when, online, the leader is eristic...doesn't help their comments seem legitimate.