251–259 of 259 posts
But I guess what you're given pretty much assume a long position.
The little I know of options (and how no human can never ever guess the strike price!).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Err, no. Not always. If a "rank and file" developer goes back and forth grilling them over offer terms, and is exceptionally picky above his peer group, this DOES make it back upstream in negative ways. Some companies will not give you this as a matter of policy - , if you are ok with the salary, you could still enjoy working there - and may also make a great deal of money (or you might not).
> Some companies will not give you this as a matter of policy Then don't work for those companies. Ones goal in life should not be to get exploited at shitty startups as a "rank and file" developer (aka chump).
All being said, if at that stage of a job offer, you don't want to be looking like the most important thing to you are your options. If you get a decent salary and like the work, you are not being exploited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the interview was confidential, I don't think the offer was. I'm going to chicken out, but it was a top 5 YC startup, and they did that. Either options or RSUs, I can't remember which, but you have no way to value them beyond the value they tell you. I ended up turning them down which was probably stupid of me.
Why was it stupid to turn down something which you couldn't value, yet had to buy (in way of lower salary or more hours or whatever it was) ?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Reasons exist" And absolutely none of them are valid. If you're going to have this person work on the core of your company, there is absolutely no reason to not be up front with them.
It's quite valid and exists as a reason, you just don't agree with it :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's quite valid and exists as a reason, you just don't agree with it :)
No, it's not valid. The only reason it would be done is for deceitful reasons. Therefore, not valid.
I do however strongly believe in tempering expectations, it's wrong to try to retain people by thinking they have more than they do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least for one of my previous employers, the secondary market was not interested. I personally wouldn't count on it unless one is working for a highly visible startup ;)
Definitely true, and many times there are clauses preventing you from selling to a 3rd party before IPO anyway.
They do fun things like giving you a loan with the options as a collateral. You would then default on the loan at the point of IPO.
So theoretically you don't sell them anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. So what is the lesson here? I hear this saying over and over, always with the implication of "Give them a pass". Who cares if they are being crooked, or are too dumb to do division. Either way, the employee loses.
There's no lesson. I'm just pointing out that many founders are more focused on tech or product than they are in options and cap tables. And many startups employ staff who are also unfamiliar with such things. Given my experience of advising early stage startup founders on equity investment, dilution, cap tables, etc., I believe that ignorance is at least as likely as malice in situations where they seem unwilling to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely true, and many times there are clauses preventing you from selling to a 3rd party before IPO anyway.
Usually those providers don't "buy" it from you. They do fun things like giving you a loan with the options as a collateral. You would then default on the loan at the point of IPO. So theoretically you don't sell them anything.