81–90 of 413 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That says it all really. $30M and you see under $100k as 24th employee. So 0.3%.
What % of the company do you think the 24th employee should get? Obviously it's highly variable depending on the role. #24 could be a COO or could be a receptionist. But for the sake of argument let's assume they're a mid level engineer (taking a stab at what MCRed might have been at the gig in question).
Another really important, highly negative, combination of these factors is if you want to leave the company. If the company is public, then you can essentially leave whenever you want, exercise the options and sell the stock to pay the costs (exercise price + taxes). But if the company is private, you have to pay the exercise price + applicable taxes (which can exist even if you only have theoretical gains) yourself,…
Just a heads up, the 90 day out clauses are usually put in there by the company lawyers. The only rule the IRS has is that ISO options flip to NSO after 90 days[0]. Take a look at the Pinterest options plan[1], where Pinterest actually gives you 7 years from when you leave to exercise. Your ISO options just flip to NSO after 90 days. [0] http://www.mystockoptions.com/faq/index.cfm/catID/36274DB1-D... [1] http://fortu…
If you are working at a company like Pinterest with a more employee-friendly option plan, then you should value the stock options at a higher value as compared to less employee-friendly plans. I ultra-long expiration periods are awesome, and they are another practical method to deal with the longer period to IPO. These types of options aren't as good as having liquidity for the stock, but with them you can be sure that if you vest the option and the company value goes way up, you'll get the benefit from that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't stress this enough. If you have Employee Incentive Options is way better to exercise them as soon as they are vested than to wait (if thinking of exercising at all). When you exercise them you pay AMT on what they are worth when exercised (of course the "fair price" is a hidden secret left for the CFO). As time passes, the "fair price" is probably going to keep increasing, but with no liquidity and inability to…
Don't wait until they vest. Do it as soon as they're assigned to you. Avoid the AMT completely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to think of options as worthless, until they vest. Which is too far in the future to count on. Pay me money. That's actually useful.
This. It seems that it's acceptable in tech culture to use "you have too much stock" a reason to even underpay founders. This is busted logic, as the company could explode at any time, not to the fault of anyone in particular (but sometimes yes). So far, I think I've been in 3 decent startups that all of which failed and do not exist anymore. None of them exited cleanly. Some might, but you might not want to stick it…
Amen. Not such a good notion to trade salary for options, when that extra salary could have been invested all that time. $10k in 2005 is equivalent to $17k in 2015, $21k if you consider dividends reinvested.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What % of the company do you think the 24th employee should get? Obviously it's highly variable depending on the role. #24 could be a COO or could be a receptionist. But for the sake of argument let's assume they're a mid level engineer (taking a stab at what MCRed might have been at the gig in question).
It's true we don't have enough info. I'm assuming he's a dev but I don't know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't wait until they vest. Do it as soon as they're assigned to you. Avoid the AMT completely.
Which is a risk, especially in companies where the strike price is close to $100/share. If it's going to be in the $10k+ range, is it really worth it to potentially reduce your future tax burden? Maybe. But it's also possible that your shares aren't worth that exercise price. Speaking only for myself, in my experience I decided to wait to see if the price was ever justified before buying the shares, and if it means a…
I am not sure I understand Aaron's point in this. Is it "We should pay people more?" But isn't that really a question of whether or not you can find people who will work for the salary your offering? If you can't you raise what your willing to pay until you find someone who will right? Or is it "We should make options always remunerative?" In which case they aren't really options are they? They are just salary so why…
In this market, I tend to think of options as incentives, and not as replacements for salary. Salary gets me in the door and work hard, great people and culture make me want to be there and evangelize, and options incentivize me to work my ass off. (I'd work my ass off without options, but the options really make it easy to say "I will do everything in my power to make this succeed" instead of "I'd rather go spend ti…
I prefer Wall Street's model of annual profit sharing. VC-istan: you can get dicked out of your bonus for reasons you don't understand (liquidation preferences, vesting resets and cliffing) or that are purely political and lose 6 years' worth of expected bonus. Wall Street: you can get dicked out of your bonus for reasons you don't understand or that are purely political and lose 11.9 months' worth of expected bonus.…
The difference is that Wall Street has profits to share. A standard company has much less profits than Wall Street, and a startup loses money. Find a way to create a company that creates a positive value for the society while having Wall Street like profits, and I can guarantee you will become rich.
In this market, I tend to think of options as incentives, and not as replacements for salary. Salary gets me in the door and work hard, great people and culture make me want to be there and evangelize, and options incentivize me to work my ass off. (I'd work my ass off without options, but the options really make it easy to say "I will do everything in my power to make this succeed" instead of "I'd rather go spend ti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
5) breaks golden handcuffs if the employees can afford to leave
That too. Though that is a much more nuanced issue with a lot of arguments on both sides.
as an employee, if you are lucky/skilled enough to end up at a successful startup, and you aren't very careful with tax issues, you can find yourself stuck: if you leave, you have to exercise, and immediately owe hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more!) on a completely illiquid asset that you can't sell. Which doesn't even take into account the potential for that asset to become less valuable.
That's not a decent way to treat people. Startups don't write the tax code, but many are willing to take advantage of it to control people this way.
After you put your 4 years in, you should be free to re-up or leave. Not free to leave if you are willing to risk all your liquid assets and/or borrow heavily.