Hacker News Reader

Same argument is also possible if the CEO/board/other insiders have a decent chunk of their net worth as options for the company stock. But in that case, the increase in insider net worth can be highly nonlinear as a function of the price of the company's share price.

> That's one of negative things about stocks in general in my opinion, because people quite often have short-term (lasting a quarter or two) outlook.

That could be easily fixed by requiring all executive and board members' stock to be held for, say, 3 years after vesting before selling.

Has it really vested at that point then?

Or is it just a longer vesting period?

I guess that depends on your understanding of "vesting" - and my understanding may be faulty.

As I understand it, if I leave the business before the vesting I get nothing. When the stock vests it becomes mine.

A lock down of the stock then means I can't trade it, but it remains mine (regardless of whether I stay or leave.) Once the lock is lifted I could sell it.

So in that sense there's a difference, yes.

I mean that making money with public stock market make hardly sense for me. It is not correlated anymore with the value you can bring.