undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgohrt9y ago0 comments

They don't convert like you say, what they do it cut refreshes. Example:

You get $100K and $50K of stock (grant value): "target compensation" = $150K

Next year, when stock vests, your target compensation is $160K, so you get $110K cash plus a stock refresh grant: * Stock went down to $0 -> $100K refresh to make up. * Stock stayed flat: -> $50K refresh * Stock went up to $100K: -> 0K refresh to cancel out. * Stock went up to $150K: -> 0K refresh to cancel out, but you still come out ahead.

So, you get upside if the stock shoots up enough, and you are protected from downside, but you lose upside if stock grows insufficiently.

It works well if you like guaranteed income, but you have to ignore a lot of the "expect" upside potential. And it makes you wonder why they bother giving so much equity, doesn't it? 1. They don't give a lot of equity. 2. It's a shell game and most new hires don't value the offer accurately.

0 comments

jonathankoren9y ago

So you're saying your initial grant remains untouched? So assuming $50k per year in stock for 4 years, after 4 years you'd get $200k plus the delta on 4 years of stock growth?

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsgohrt9y ago0 comments

They don't convert like you say, what they do it cut refreshes. Example:

You get $100K and $50K of stock (grant value): "target compensation" = $150K

So, you get upside if the stock shoots up enough, and you are protected from downside, but you lose upside if stock grows insufficiently.