431–440 of 441 posts
A good idiom doesn't need over-explanation, and I think the "bus factor" is a good idiom; no Rails or Netflix commentary required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Every person in this discussion understands how language is used in this context. I am not sure, hence my reference to the dictionary. In my opinion the whole discussion is because people only know one usage and think the other one is a hyperbole. Otherwise you'd been actually arguing about the meanings of words with the dictionary, which looks rather stupid.
Your position seems to be that it’s invalid to even talk about whether a word should be used in a context, if the dictionary says it should. This prevents any discourse around whether we should evolve the language, because an appeal to authority like citing the dictionary would just shut down the debate. To use an offensive example: This dictionary has a 4th definition for the word “Jew” meaning “to bargain sharply w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>on the job market. That's a very nebulous term, as this whole thread bears out. I feel sometimes like my comments are abducted by aliens.
Perhaps we understand the word differently. To me, it isn't particularly nebulous, it just means, "People who are currently looking for a new job." Which would roughly be composed of people who are currently unemployed, and people who have jobs but are looking for a new one. I suppose the developers in the story I relate would actually be sort of the latter group looking to avoid becoming the former group, but that's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since RSUs vest over time, the penny-for-penny equivalent financial transaction for receiving $100K worth of RSUs over 4 years, would be for me to receive $100K of cash compensation over 4 years, and using it to buy stock (That I can't sell for X months). There's no advantage to RSUs. Cash is better in every way, because, at worst, you can invest it in the exact same allocation that your RSUs are invested in. Any gai…
The advantage if you are definitely going to invest the cash in the same company is you get to invest pretax with rsu’s probably.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case it is free arbitrage. This is because if the stock goes way down, and you are 1 year into your 4 year vest, then you can leave the company, and get a high compensation package somewhere else. Do you understand how this makes it so you have free downside protection, from those other 3 years, because you can leave and get the high salary somewhere else, if the stock crashes?
Since RSUs vest over time, the penny-for-penny equivalent financial transaction for receiving $100K worth of RSUs over 4 years, would be for me to receive $100K of cash compensation over 4 years, and using it to buy stock (That I can't sell for X months). There's no advantage to RSUs. Cash is better in every way, because, at worst, you can invest it in the exact same allocation that your RSUs are invested in. Any gai…
You still dont understand. Let me work this out for you, year by year.
Lets say that the stock grant is 25k a year, over 4 years. But there is a 50% chance, after year 1, of the stock doubling and staying there, and a 50% chance of it going to 0. IE, it will be worth 50k or 0$, which is an expected value of 25k.
So you have 100k of stock, and 25k vests on year 1.
Situation 1: you win the coin flip, and the stock doubles. Your 25k that you received, is now worth 50k. BUT, you now have an ADDITIONAL 150k that is unvested. The unvested stock has increased in value! If you stay for 3 more years, you get 200k in total.
Total value: 200k, over 4 years.
Now, lets look at situation 2.
In situation 2, the stock crashes to 0, after 1 year. Your 25k vest, is now worth 0$. As is, the next 3 year vest is also worth 0.
But here is the trick. What you do now, is that you quit your job. You do not stay at the company for 3 more years, to get the 0$ of stock. Instead, you get different job with stock that vests at 25k a year.
Total value: 0$ for the first year, + 25k/year at job 2. Which equals 75k.
Do you see how this is different?
You absolutely could NOT get the same value as this, if you were paid in cash. Because if you were paid in cash, then you would realize the full losses of situation 2.
> Any gain from them rising in price could have been realized by investing cash
No, actually. In situation 1, I receive 200k, and in situation 2 I receive 75k, because I am protected by the downside risk, by the fact that if the stock crashes to 0, I can leave the company and get my salary higher again.
This is not possible by investing 100k from the beginning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since RSUs vest over time, the penny-for-penny equivalent financial transaction for receiving $100K worth of RSUs over 4 years, would be for me to receive $100K of cash compensation over 4 years, and using it to buy stock (That I can't sell for X months). There's no advantage to RSUs. Cash is better in every way, because, at worst, you can invest it in the exact same allocation that your RSUs are invested in. Any gai…
> the penny-for-penny equivalent financial transaction for receiving $100K worth of RSUs over 4 years, would be for me to receive $100K of cash You still dont understand. Let me work this out for you, year by year. Lets say that the stock grant is 25k a year, over 4 years. But there is a 50% chance, after year 1, of the stock doubling and staying there, and a 50% chance of it going to 0. IE, it will be worth 50k or 0…
Once the four year vesting cliff is done, though, the annual top-ups aren't much different from cash (Because if the stock inflates fantastically, you will get fewer RSUs next year).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're asking that businesses think about long-term goals, efficiency, and what is best for the business. After having worked at over a couple dozen companies, I've never seen such an attitude from any business. Industry and size are irrelevant. Occasionally things line up by accident and the business does well, but every single business I've ever worked at or seen has a culture of shooting itself in the foot: * No t…
There does seem to be a slight difference between stock-owned and founder/family-owned business, in my experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You actually do not own the capital until it vests, and the amount that vests (which could have greatly appreciated) is all taxed as income.
That's just accounting treatment. Doesn't change the financial fact that it can be replicated with a cash bonus the same size as the original grant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The advantage if you are definitely going to invest the cash in the same company is you get to invest pretax with rsu’s probably.
No, I don't, I pay income tax on my RSUs when they vest. And then I pay cap gains taxes I sell.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since RSUs vest over time, the penny-for-penny equivalent financial transaction for receiving $100K worth of RSUs over 4 years, would be for me to receive $100K of cash compensation over 4 years, and using it to buy stock (That I can't sell for X months). There's no advantage to RSUs. Cash is better in every way, because, at worst, you can invest it in the exact same allocation that your RSUs are invested in. Any gai…
> the penny-for-penny equivalent financial transaction for receiving $100K worth of RSUs over 4 years, would be for me to receive $100K of cash You still dont understand. Let me work this out for you, year by year. Lets say that the stock grant is 25k a year, over 4 years. But there is a 50% chance, after year 1, of the stock doubling and staying there, and a 50% chance of it going to 0. IE, it will be worth 50k or 0…