Employee compensation and one-year equity grants | Hacker News Reader

Employee compensation and one-year equity grants

tanay.substack.com

42 pointsacjohnson5510 comments

While this is worth a discussion, I'm not sure I agree 100% . It looks like the author has only seen the past 10+ year bull market, and not seen falling valuations, which could wipe out equity options and render them underwater or below the price they were granted at ... or completely useless if the company they are working for (startups in the case of this article) goes under.

Yes, delayed instead of immediate grants work fantastic when the company stock is increasing in value, sometimes spectacularly, but that doesn't always happen.

"Surely, declining stock value at startups is theoretical!" you say? Look no further than what happened with the Uber RSU debacle just late last year (2020), when Uber tried to do the right thing in helping its employees, but a falling stock price meant that employees lost out and ended up suing the company: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/28/nearly-200-uber-employees-su...

You could also be laid off. Downside protection is a marginal benefit nobody has ever asked for.

Yeah, I join this startup because I expect it will fail!

It's legitimate to point out the potential downsides. Even if you hope the startup you join will succeed and believe in its chances, plenty of promising companies fail (sometimes simply due to circumstances). Hedging your bets (or "hope for the best but plan for the worst") is absolutely something a lot of people want/do/"ask for".

Looking at the article the author bases their analysis on stock value growth of Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft - which are absolutely not typical/expected.

At least in my eyes: The downside risk is already so high in a startup that a marginal decrease is simply not worth the loss of the upside.

About 90% will fail. You should really be assuming that your options are worth basically zero. Basically zero ~= Basically zero with better downside protection.

For high performing tech companies - you absolutely don't want the loss of upside in the current market.

I think there is some legitimacy to this in a long-term company that experiences boom and bust cycles, though - things that come to mind for me are airlines, auto manufacturing, agriculture, etc.

The worst is : company failing or you getting laid off.

This downside protection is a crappy deal.

Yeah but with a 1 year vesting instead of 4 you may be able to cash out before the bubble bursts.

Vesting schedule is the same.

Did you think you have to wait 4y to get stock?

As far as I understand the article instead of getting 1/4 the stocks each year for 4 years they get it all at once, hence after 1 year you get 100% of the stock instead of 4. Is that not what was meant?

You get 100% of the stock worth 1y after 1y

Stripe, for example, gives out around 300k-350k per year for senior AVG.

Back then for 4y equity, 1y was worth around 250k initially.

Basing the argument on single company stock reliably going up is a big mistake, but I do think the longer-dated stock awards are advantageous to many employees because they're effectively an employee option - every month/quarter/year you have the option to quit for a market rate job elsewhere or accept whatever the stock is worth.

Also if a stock dips many employers in competitive markets will end up compensating somehow. It's difficult to model because it depends on how employers behave and how much they want to retain you. If they reliably give you extra grants/bonus to get people back to target compensation after a decrease in stock price, then the downside risk of longer-dated grants is reduced a lot, but you still have significant upside.

Reality is that people don't want to job hop always, not everyone can easily find a market rate job, employers don't 100% true people up after a stock dips and and employer might not be invested in retaining even a good employee. So YMMV.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com