Live data from Hacker News

10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

dangelo.quora.com

101–110 of 149 posts

Re: 10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

#101
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I'd say easily 3-5%.

Quite honestly that would shock me, but I wouldn't know where to get data about this. I always believed that only a microscopic fraction of tech workers actually made off with more than a year or so of salary from options (but those who did likely made out extraordinarily well). I would not expect a very flat distribution.

Every time any tech company goes IPO or gets acquired for a large number (~>$50M), that's on average 1,000+ engineers who probably made some amount of money from options.

Re: 10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

#102

Founders are committed and in for the long haul, and either make a lot of money or none. Startup employees make less money on a nice exit, but aren't as committed and can work for a few companies (maybe 2 years each) to improve their odds. So having 10 years to exercise makes a lot of sense for the second group. Forcing the employees to stay until liquidation makes zero sense for the second group. So you need to give…

If you aren't actively working for the company, and maybe even if you are, it's trivial for your options to end up diluted out to crap by any random funding event that might happen. I raised this issue once at a company I was at and got the response that "they weren't helping move the company forward any more." Assume your options are 0.

That's another great point: if you invest more time at a company, and have no real control, then you are out of luck when the liquidation actually happens.

Startups are faith based to some extent, and it's unwise to put so much time on pure faith in a business relationship.

Re: 10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

#103

Scott's post genuinely makes me angry. It uses subtle language to imply that employees are inferior individuals who are lucky that the owners of capital deign to share anything with them. In Scott's worldview, choosing to leave a company before it has exited is inherently disloyal. Even if they're paying you under market. Even if you could contribute more value elsewhere. I wonder if he would accept similar terms: 1.…

Firstly, while I think Scott is wrong, I don't see much that's disrespectful or implying disloyalty about his tone. Not even the stuff about "dead equity."

I'll extend some comments I made downthread:

a16z is a major investor (growth round resulting in a board seat for a16z) in many of the companies that have extended vesting periods, such as Coinbase, Pinterest, Asana, and Tilt (list here: https://github.com/holman/extended-exercise-windows). They also invested in CodeCombat and I'm sure some other startups on that list (I didn't check them all). So I seriously doubt they block companies from doing extended exercise windows.

And claiming that those companies were/are hot and therefore had leverage is a bit circular because hot companies are the kinds of companies a16z often funds in growth rounds (and often it is because a16z funded you that makes you hot).

Re: 10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

#104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also rather telling that these are among the worst examples of pre-IPO tech companies you can think of. Nah, just the first ones that came to mind. Theranos is another good one I should've mentioned.

Theranos was never in the category of going-to-IPO-soon.

Arguably, neither were any of the others; none of them ever published an S-1.

Re: 10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

#105

Scott's post genuinely makes me angry. It uses subtle language to imply that employees are inferior individuals who are lucky that the owners of capital deign to share anything with them. In Scott's worldview, choosing to leave a company before it has exited is inherently disloyal. Even if they're paying you under market. Even if you could contribute more value elsewhere. I wonder if he would accept similar terms: 1.…

Firstly, while I think Scott is wrong, I don't see much that's disrespectful or implying disloyalty about his tone. Not even the stuff about "dead equity." I'll extend some comments I made downthread: a16z is a major investor (growth round resulting in a board seat for a16z) in many of the companies that have extended vesting periods, such as Coinbase, Pinterest, Asana, and Tilt (list here: https://github.com/holman/…

> So I seriously doubt they block companies from doing extended exercise windows.

You're right that they don't veto companies from doing extended exercise windows.

That doesn't mean they don't oppose them and argue against them. This post makes their viewpoint quite clear, and it means that any founder wanting to do right by employees will have to argue strongly for that position.

Even beyond the specific issue, the tone of this article makes it very clear that they are not employee-friendly.

Contrast that with Sam and YC, who indicate both through the policies and their tone that they recognize that employees also make sacrifices to join companies and invest in their success even if they don't stay through IPO.

Re: 10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, while I think Scott is wrong, I don't see much that's disrespectful or implying disloyalty about his tone. Not even the stuff about "dead equity." I'll extend some comments I made downthread: a16z is a major investor (growth round resulting in a board seat for a16z) in many of the companies that have extended vesting periods, such as Coinbase, Pinterest, Asana, and Tilt (list here: https://github.com/holman/…

> So I seriously doubt they block companies from doing extended exercise windows. You're right that they don't veto companies from doing extended exercise windows. That doesn't mean they don't oppose them and argue against them. This post makes their viewpoint quite clear, and it means that any founder wanting to do right by employees will have to argue strongly for that position. Even beyond the specific issue, the…

Yes, a founder giving some reasons for wanting to do something is not a high barrier to overcome.

Re: 10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

#107
post #81
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One way to do this with very early employees is to avoid the whole mess by just giving stock.

You'd still have to pay taxes on it as per your (audit-able) 409a valuation.

Sure, depending on the country it works different ways. But if there is tax to pay, it is on a low valuation (very early, remember).

Re: 10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

#108
For young startups, I always recommend allowing Early Exercise. Put simply, it's the right by employees to exercise their options before they vest. The company retains a right to repurchase those options should the employee depart before they vest.

This enables them to exercise them as soon as they're granted, which greatly reduces the tax burden in two ways:

- First, the strike price and the value of the option are the same when they're granted, which means that the spread (i.e. the difference between exercise price and value of the options exercised which the IRS considers profit for AMT) is zero. Therefore, no taxes need to be paid. I've been stung by a 5-figure AMT tax bill on exercised options that were completely illiquid—all of which would've been avoided had I exercised early.

- It starts the clock for long-term capital gains. You need to hold the actual stock for over 1 year to be taxed at capital gains rates instead of income tax rates. Federally, this can lower your tax rates from up to ~40% to ~20%. (would've been 15% pre-Obama!) In CA, for state taxes there is no distinction, so you'd still be paying income tax rates of ~10-13%

Keep in mind, if you early exercise, that you must file an 83b election with the IRS within 30 days, or the tax consequences can be severe. (If you don't, you'd be taxed on the spread at the current option value every time some of your options vest.)

Now, I think extended exercise windows are great too, and ideally option agreements would have both. I think generally, early exercise makes more sense for employees who join pre-Series-B, while extended exercise windows make more sense for later stage employees.

Re: 10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

#109
post #75

Thank you for this Adam, as an early-stage startup guy who still hasn't made his FU money, this really nails all the salient points for me. Scott Kupor tries to decorate his article with references to employees' interests and considerations, but it's clear the guy has spent his career on the on the management/finance side where he doesn't really understand what it means to be a ground-level early-stage contributor to…

I agree with all of this. a16z and other VC's are pretty clearly on the side of capital, and don't really believe that labor provides any value. Employee's taking lower salaries and investing years of their lives don't provide any lasting value according to a16z. I just cannot believe that he would try to justify taking back fairly given compensation because an employee did not want to continue doubling down and inve…

When did the labor-capital debate shift from truck drivers to PhD-caliber computer scientists? Serious question, I think I missed the clear split. Has it always been there and I didn't realize it? Is there a clear historical event?

Re: 10-Year Exercise Periods Make Sense

#110
You can't pay rent or save for a mortgage downpayment with illiquid stock options.

It takes something like $200-400K to get on the housing ladder in the Bay Area so the idea of putting it off for 8-10 years with no guarantee of success is already unattractive.

To shackle yourself to a single company for the duration? Nuts. When did you last work anywhere for 8 years?

Post reply on HN