undefined | Better HN

0 pointsseattle_spring5y ago0 comments

> Poole lasted just five years at Google, which CNBC notes is usually just long enough for any employee's shares attached to hiring to vest

They make it sound like he barely managed to get any stock. That's like saying, "person worked at X for 1 year, just long enough to get 1 year's salary." Well, yeah, but if they left in 11 months they'd get 11 months salary. It's not like if Poole left at 1 year or 4 years or anything in between he would have left with anything different proportionally to his tenure.

What an odd article.

0 comments

dmoy5y ago

Also it doesn't really match with reality, since they'd usually get refresh grants and have a rolling four year window at all times.

The article sounds like the reporter heard a soundbyte about google's typical four year vesting period, and then did zero actual research into what that means.

ryandrake5y ago

I don't know--I've heard a lot of people here noting the "4 year cliff" at most tech companies, not just Google. Not all companies give refreshes, and of those that do, it's usually not enough to make up for the initial grant going away.

I left my last job pretty much on the day of my 4 year anniversary because I'd otherwise be taking a 25% comp hit in year 5. It's definitely a thing.

pmkiwi5y ago

Pardon my ignorance but what is the "4 year cliff" exactly?

1 more reply

somerandomness5y ago

It’s typical to get a larger 4-year grant at hire. It’s common to complain about comp drop after 4 years

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse