Live data from Hacker News

Do the math on your stock options

jvns.ca

181–190 of 259 posts

Re: Do the math on your stock options

#181

Options are for suckers. Do you want to be an investor? No? then why would you pay for stock out of your own money? At our startup everyone gets the same stock, not options, through our Equity Incentive Plan. Here's how it works. 1. We lend new employees the amount of money it would take to buy common stock on a non-recourse promissory note the collateral in this case is the stock itself. 2. The employee then buys th…

This is how to do your equity compensation founders. It would be the recruiting tool you need to hire people who won't work at most startups due to research or being burned in the past. Thanks for sharing this. Thinking on how to do equity compensation right when you have no real profit to share was one of the barriers for me starting a startup.

At some point I will write it up with templates and all on our blog, but we need to focus on growth right now.

Re: Do the math on your stock options

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you're an irreplaceable employee, you won't get that. In particular, it's unreasonable to take the initial percentage and demand the same percentage of preferred shares (or venture debt convertible into shares at the lender option). Many of these "horrors" are a reality of the angels and VCs protections that enable and are essential to the company financing. IOW, attempting to tunnel under those protections fo…

VCs get dilution protection, why can't other "investors" who invest time and effort. If that dilution protection is some other form than stated, well I need to read up on it. But my general approach is that just because you are an employee not a capital investor does not mean you should just take whatever shit is doled out. Especially not these days. That whole thread is about finding better terms and protection to t…

I don't view it as "shut up and take it", but rather "here's what we're offering; would you like to take it?"

The most common form of dilution protection is the right to invest more cash in future rounds pro-rata. (So you can pay to stop being diluted.) That you might be able to get if you hold shares, but you're going to need to pay cash at each round to avoid dilution. You won't realistically be able to get it as an option holder in the employee option pool, and as a non-accredited person (by the meaning of CFR Title 17.II§230.501), I'm not sure of the legality of investing cash to protect existing holdings from dilution. (I'm not saying it's not legal; I'm just not sure as I meet at least one of those tests.)

As both an employee of startups (in the past) and an angel investor (dabbler/dilettante), I can see both sides, but when I contemplate writing a check to "2 founders, an idea, and a powerpoint deck", you can imagine that many provisions of convertible/venture debt exist to make that make a tiny bit more sense and provide some limited downside protection for the "indefinitely horizontal" company trajectory.

Once I invest, I have very limited input into how the CEO runs the company, but I'd advise a CEO to pass on a mid or late stage employee who is too much of a troublemaker about their options terms. Realistically, the company should not be negotiating and drafting custom options terms per employee and an employee who demands such is probably a better fit for someplace else. Quite literally, the terms of the company option plan are (often) set and modifying them is nowhere near the same as giving a signing bonus, flexible hours, a few extra vacation days, work from home on Wednesdays, or a different salary/bonus amount.

Re: Do the math on your stock options

#183

I am considering an offer from an early stage startup. Salary is being dragged down ~40% under market due to stock options. The role is being a 'first key engineer' hire after the three co-founders. What kind of common-stock equity offer is 'average' in this case? 1%? 2%? 5%?

In order to answer your question there are a couple of important data points that need answering:

1) Are any of the three co-founders engineers? Or are you expected to run engineering?

2) How senior are you? Will you be expected to take on a leadership role or, after they hire a couple more folks, will you just be one of the team?

3) What is the fundraising situation for the company?

4) Has the company released a product to the market? If so, how much traction is there?

The first two questions go towards answering how important you might be to the organization. Obviously more important -> more equity. The last two questions go towards evaluating how much success has been achieved already. More success -> less equity. Though less isn't necessarily a bad thing here as you'll be joining a company with a greater chance of success.

Re: Do the math on your stock options

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience it's never a good idea to take a pay cut in lue of equity. Taking a pay cut because you like the product, the role, etc. are infinity better reasons than equity. In my opinion a 40% pay cut and being one of the first 5 engineers warrants co-founder status.

Co-founder? You could call me "Company Wizard and Lord of Space and Time" and I still wouldn't take a 40% pay cut. That's outrageous.

And you are not the kind of person who would ever want to leave a corporate job to work at a very early stage startup. And that's fine.

But a 40% pay cut is within the the norms for that sort of transition. It can be a good move for some people.

Re: Do the math on your stock options

#185
This is a bit ridiculous.

Why do you need to pay taxes when exercising the options? At that point one did not made any profit and in fact you made an investment (you spent money and there's still high chance you might lose to that investment).

It would make much sense to be taxed when you sell the stock (and use the original option price you paid for the shares).

Re: Do the math on your stock options

#186
post #185

This is a bit ridiculous. Why do you need to pay taxes when exercising the options? At that point one did not made any profit and in fact you made an investment (you spent money and there's still high chance you might lose to that investment). It would make much sense to be taxed when you sell the stock (and use the original option price you paid for the shares).

Just because you don't have cash doesn't mean you don't have an asset that has value. If I give you a house, you don't have cash, but you still have to pay taxes on the gift.

I do agree that there is some degree of ridiculosity and there should probably be some tax reform here, but that is the reasoning behind the current rules.

Re: Do the math on your stock options

#187
post #167
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you get the cash and options the wrong way round in your example ($100k + 5000 options / $110k + 3000 options)? That bit confused me for a while. Or maybe I'm missing something about how they work!

Actually, his example works either way. Imagine this: - $110k + 5k options, with 5M shares outstanding, at a strike price of $1 / share. - $100k + 3k options, with 1M shares outstanding, at a strike price of $0.01 / share Both are realistic scenarios for an early-stage startup. The 3k options in the second deal are worth much more than the 5k options in the first deal, on paper. (This is without even brining in valua…

My understanding is that strike price can be virtually unboundedly below current valuation of the share, given particular circumstances of a company, which makes this calculation quite sensitive to the valuation.

A call option on a share of Google with a strike price of $50 is worth a heck of a lot more than a call option on "name any startup" with a strike price of a tenth of a penny.

There are, naturally, cash flow implications to this.

Re: Do the math on your stock options

#188
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not warrant cofounder status at all. So much more goes into being a cofounder than simply being one of the first x employees.

Well when someone is offered a 'key' engineering role it's basically a fancy way of saying 'you'll be building pretty much everything'. Couple that with the fact that it requires a 40% pay cut and you've got a situation that definitely warrants co-founder status.

Most founders go with no pay for quite some time. You can still be a co-founder and receive pay but being a co-founder conveys far more risk and responsibility than being one of the first x employees in the company. Even if you happen to be the person "building pretty much everything", it still does not justify being a co-founder.

If you wish to be a co-founder, you typically have to be willing to take more than 40% pay cut for much longer. You must be willing to defer your paycheck so that your other employees (who are usually on a paycut too) can get paid if funds get tight - this is even expected of most CO employees in the company but the first ones to go are always the founder's. You are usually involved in most fundraising activity in addition to your other duties, whatever they may be* and customer support early on.

The list is quite long, I was once a highly entitled "engineer" until I built a few of my own companies. The dynamics are so much more complicated and tailored to each individual situation that it's disingenuous to lay out blanket statements the way most people in these comment threads have been doing.

Being a founder is brutal.

I'm not saying key engineers aren't entitled to good or fair treatment or that it is impossible to become a co-founder if you're #3 or #4 or #5, but I do not believe you're entitled to founder status just because you're an early hire. Sometimes it can happen that way if you choose to take on those responsibilities and risk and negotiate that dynamic with the other founders - setting up achievement milestones and what-not.

Similarly: Just because you're a founder doesn't mean you're actually entitled to the role of C*O (though you may hold that position early on as it needs to be "filled" it can quickly out-grow you). Some can become those roles and some simply aren't capable of scaling with the needs of the company.

Re: Do the math on your stock options

#189
My first equity experience is going to be RSUs. They seem better in every way: you don't owe taxes in cash (they're withheld), you can't go upside down (zero strike price), and you don't need capital to begin with so your compensation does not depend on how wealthy you already are.

Why would anyone take options if they could get RSUs?

Re: Do the math on your stock options

#190

Stories of equity working out well are rare in these comments. I think in part this is because contentment is silent, so I'll share a bit. I joined a private company with over $100M in revenue about 3 months before IPO. They couldn't say they were in the process when I took the job, but it was hinted at strongly. I got an options grant with normal 4 year vest that amounted to an actual face value of about $50k. Being…

thanks for sharing! :)
Post reply on HN