Live data from Hacker News

Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

businessinsider.com

51–60 of 175 posts

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#51
post #4

It looks like what happened is employees got a fixed number of RSUs. Their pay letter assigned a hypothetical value to those shares based on an incorrect stock price. So Amazon is probably not changing anything in the raise itself but rather correcting the hypothetical future value of the RSUs.

I've never seen a $$ amount associated with RSUs on the offer letter, only the number of stock awarded. The recruiter may tentatively tell you how much they're currently worth to give you an estimated total comp.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#52
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not Amazon, but when I receive RSUs it is denominated in the dollar amount. In a year when the first part vests the dollars are converted to stock units based on the price at that moment. Thus I do not know how many units of stock I am receiving until the first vesting event, because I don't know what the price will be in a year.

That makes no sense at all. Why not just give you cash with an X year delay.

I have 4 year vesting period. After the first vest the following vests start to be denominated in stock units.

I think the advantage for company is somewhat better predictability?

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what's great about being a CEO! Things go bad? Ship is too big to steer, the failure is on the whole company, the CEO didn't even know, they swear! Things go right? Obviously it was all the hard work of the CEO they definitely deserve millions in bonuses! It was Steve Jobs, so was the wage-fixing. They were all so stupid about it they literally got busted doing it. Doesn't matter what the company makes, only…

yeah no one ever makes the argument that Steve Jobs doesn't deserve 100% of the credit for Apple's success

I’ll make that argument: Steve Jobs doesn't deserve 100% of the credit for Apple's success.

I think that’s trivially true. AFAIK, it wasn’t him alone who put 100+ million iPhones in boxes every year, and without that, Apple’s success would have been smaller. He also didn’t do hardware design without help, and I’m fairly sure he didn’t write much of Apple’s software, etc. etc.

Even if you think all others involved were replaceable, many of them still contributed.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#54
post #4

It looks like what happened is employees got a fixed number of RSUs. Their pay letter assigned a hypothetical value to those shares based on an incorrect stock price. So Amazon is probably not changing anything in the raise itself but rather correcting the hypothetical future value of the RSUs.

I've never seen a $$ amount associated with RSUs on the offer letter, only the number of stock awarded. The recruiter may tentatively tell you how much they're currently worth to give you an estimated total comp.

I had $x of RSUs offered at signing at FAANG-esque company. A month after joining you were allocated x RSUs at the given stock price at that moment for the offered $ amount.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#55

Two things going on here: 1. First, I'm a bit baffled by some of the responses along the lines of "Amazon should just own their mistake". Sorry, but in the real world, "finders keepers" rarely applies (unless you're talking about crypto, but I digress...). I would certainly want a bug corrected if it were in my favor, and if a bug went the other way, I might need to re-evaluate my company satisfaction based on my new…

Yes, absolutely number 1!

There is a huge precedent for companies not paying for compensation calculation mistakes, which is also supported by law (in the UK at least where I am from - but assume it would be the same in the US).

Amazing how many comments in this thread are acting like this standard practice is a completely new thing with zero precedence.

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#56

Two things going on here: 1. First, I'm a bit baffled by some of the responses along the lines of "Amazon should just own their mistake". Sorry, but in the real world, "finders keepers" rarely applies (unless you're talking about crypto, but I digress...). I would certainly want a bug corrected if it were in my favor, and if a bug went the other way, I might need to re-evaluate my company satisfaction based on my new…

There’s a difference between variable and a new hire at my current level would get literally double my current comp as a person at the company for five years

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your compensation letter it may say a $ value but it’s just a formulaic presentation based on the fixed # of RSUs. You’re not compensated by “You’re getting $20,000 in however many RSUs that can buy at the time”. It’s “you’re getting 100 RSUs” and then whenever you get them your compensation letter states their current $ value.

>You’re not compensated by “You’re getting $20,000 in however many RSUs that can buy at the time” In my company this is exactly how it works. Bonus is X% of salary and the exact number of RSUs and SARs is floating until the time they are granted. Everyone hopes the market has a bad day when the bonus is granted. I assumed this is how it works at all large companies.

Given a certain dollar amount (e.g. X% of salary), the number of RSUs to grant is calculated by dividing the dollar amount by the market price of the stock. There are two common ways to calculate the market price of the stock, and the difference comes down to this:

1. The market price of the stock is determined at the time of the grant, and; 2. The market price of the stock is determined at the time the RSUs vest.

If there’s a one-time grant that is given immediately, the two values are usually going to be very close. But if the grant vests over some number of years (e.g. four year schedule, 25% vests after one year, remaining 75% vests monthly), the difference between the two methods can differ greatly.

When the price is determined at grant time, employees benefit from the stock rising, and are penalized if the stock falls. When the price is determined at vesting time, employees end up with the same compensation no matter what the stock does, they only benefit from appreciation if they hold the stock and it appreciates after vesting.

In your company, do the bonus RSUs have a vesting schedule? Or are they granted and distributed shortly thereafter?

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#58
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RSUs are always granted as a number of shares. It's kind of the point of them, so the employee benefits from stock appreciation since their hire date. However, in offer paperwork, it will sometimes be stated as a dollar value. This is for two reasons: the first is that RSUs need to be approved by the board at a meeting, which can happen some time after the hire date, at which time the dollar value is converted into s…

Since there are comments saying things like "I've never seen them based on dollar value": My well known company has always granted stocks based on dollar value. Many employees incorrectly thought it was "number of shares", but if anyone actually asked the manager who decided how many shares they would get, the answer was always "We're given a dollar budget in shares to allocate amongst our reports - the system then c…

I think people in this thread might be talking past each other.

I get a manager could be told “you have $500k of 4 year grants to give out this year”. He tells an employee “you’re getting a $100k 4 year grant.” Stock is $100 today, so that’s 1,000 shares, or 250 per year.

A year passes. Stock goes to $50. Here’s my big question: Are they still getting 250 shares this year from that grant (now with a value of $12,500) or are they getting $25,000 which is now 500 shares?

The first one is what I mean by it being set in stock and it’s the only thing I’ve seen. I get that it was calculated in dollars at the beginning, for budgeting purposes.

Something in between is what I think Coinbase and Stripe are doing, which is 1 year grants. I think they’re still frozen to number of shares at the beginning of the year (even if it’s calculated in dollars).

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#59
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense at all. Why not just give you cash with an X year delay.

I have 4 year vesting period. After the first vest the following vests start to be denominated in stock units. I think the advantage for company is somewhat better predictability?

[deleted]

Re: Amazon walking back raises after internal bug miscalculated compensation

#60

Two things going on here: 1. First, I'm a bit baffled by some of the responses along the lines of "Amazon should just own their mistake". Sorry, but in the real world, "finders keepers" rarely applies (unless you're talking about crypto, but I digress...). I would certainly want a bug corrected if it were in my favor, and if a bug went the other way, I might need to re-evaluate my company satisfaction based on my new…

There’s a difference between variable and a new hire at my current level would get literally double my current comp as a person at the company for five years

a new hire at my current level would get literally double my current comp as a person at the company for five years

That's not unusual. Well, 2x salary might be, but it's well established that job hopping is the only way to guarantee your salary stays close to market.

Post reply on HN