Live data from Hacker News

We need to rethink employee compensation

aaronkharris.com

131–140 of 413 posts

Re: We need to rethink employee compensation

#131
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that 0.3% is radially out of line. It sounds completely in the ballpark of reasonable to me.

I think it depends on the risk. Getting hired at #24 might be a much less risky proposition than number 10 or 15.

Assume we're talking about a senior developer and come up with math that reasonably gets #24 above 100 basis points. It's not impossible, but it's pretty tricky.

Remember, in a lot of companies, the founders are diluted way back below 10%.

Re: We need to rethink employee compensation

#132

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…

Sounds like this is an employee education problem at its root. Naive job candidates are evaluating offers and way overvaluing their equity compensation, sometimes even allowing it to substitute for cash. As discussed in a separate thread, the consensus is that options (vested or not) in a non-liquid company should be valued at or close to $zero. This could be an education job for college Career Services.

Coming out of college, very few people can even conceptualize risk, randomness, and the possibility of a variety of outcomes. Pretty much the whole education system is based on a series of "If you take this action, you will be rewarded in this way" choices - if you complete your homework, it's 10% of your grade, if you bomb the midterm, it's 33% of your grade, your GPA is the average of all your classes, if you make a 3.0 GPA you can keep your scholarships and if you maintain a 3.5 for 2 semesters you make the dean's list. Get good grades and good SAT scores and you'll get into a good college and be set for life.

I've often wondered whether the best education that you could give youngsters would be a course that was probabilistically graded. If you work hard and ace the tests, it would increase the chance that you get a good grade - but your final grade also depends on things like the teacher's mood, the roll of a d20, the stock market performance on grading day, and whether the school gets a fat alumni donation that quarter. But I can imagine the public outcry if such a policy were enacted. Parents would sue the school, claiming that they've ruined their kids' chances for getting into a good college.

Re: We need to rethink employee compensation

#133
post #3

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…

* Awaits movement of savvy landlords accepting options as payment

There was craziness like that during the first dot-com bubble. I remember a story of a dentist taking options as payment.

Re: We need to rethink employee compensation

#134
My thoughts on options are pretty much identical except I would say "worthless" no "worth less".

I would also add that with an option position you are most likely giving up a higher salary and the opportunity cost that comes with it.

An extra 30K each year invested at 5% in 5 years is worth more than 200K lump sum in 5 years (200K discounted at 5% for 5 years is $157K).

You also have to factor in the probability of an exit. I just multiply the probability by the expected future amount. So 10% chance of exit in 5 years with a predicted equity position of $1M I would only count it as $100K. Discount it for 5 years and it is even worse: $78K.

Of course you also have to factor in taxes. If you are already in a high bracket and in CA you are going to be paying 9.3 CA + 28 Fed + 6.2 FICA = 43.5%. So more salary is pretty much worth half as much. You might have to worry about AMT as well.

Of course with a capital gains, assuming you exercised more than a year ago (possibly earlier with ISO options) then you will be taxed at only 15%.

But you have also given up that cash and the associated opportunity cost. In effect, instead of a "free" lottery ticket taxed at 43.5% you now bought an expensive lottery ticket, for the option (hehe) of only being taxed at 15%.

I'm on my 3rd startup and have equity in all of them and have yet to see a single penny.

Honestly with tax brackets that high, and the chance of getting any equity so small, I'm more tempted to start a business on the side that can be taxed separately than try for a higher paying job.

The way I pick a company to work at now is more based on what kind of personal and career growth it will offer, and also how much I will like working there.

Re: We need to rethink employee compensation

#135
post #3

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…

As someone who was a 1st employee at a small startup (who made the mistake of accepting 50% below salary for a few percentage points of equity), this rings very true to me.

However, my empathy goes out to early-stage (pre Series-A companies)...how do you get those engineers then if you, yourselves, have no money and know that equity doesn't pay the bills. Is it through revenue/profit sharing? Cause I would imagine if I wanted to start my own company, and I was looking for someone post-founders in a pre Series-A environment, I can't imagine my seed investments would give me enough cushion to hire near market rates.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I wholeheartedly agree we need to compensate startup employees better.

Re: We need to rethink employee compensation

#136
post #3

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.…

It's perhaps even more clear if you just work in sales rather than engineering for a tech company. Then you have predefined, measurable performance goals and are paid for meeting or exceeding for them each quarter.

Re: We need to rethink employee compensation

#137
post #4

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,…

If you don't have a seat in the board room, you are at the mercy of the board as to whether your options retain any value.

It's very easy for the board to completely dilute you to nothingness, and having exercised, well, the attitude is "fuck you" because there is nothing more you can give the company.

Re: We need to rethink employee compensation

#138
post #3

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…

To employees options are a free lottery ticket. You could work your ass off and make your company a huge success, but due to vesting and liquidity preference wind up with nothing. Unless you have enough skin in the game (read, you are an investor or founder), your options mostly useless.

A company whose equity outcome is wiped out by liquidation preferences is practically by definition not a "huge success".

Re: We need to rethink employee compensation

#139

I don't mean to sound too dismissive, but this article is bunkum. SO I guess by the author's logic, Michael Bloomberg's net worth is zero because Bloomberg LP never went public? The private market is illiquid, but fundamentals will always trump liquidity. If you own equity, that equity - assuming there is no dilution or deterioration in the fundamentals of the underlying business - is wealth. Employee stock options a…

You're missing the point. A typical options agreement today is not able to be exercised after you quit, even if you're vested. You might have 30 days. IPO is likely a decade away or more, if there is one at all. Where is the liquidity going to come from in an industry that doesn't tend to make profits until well down the road?

There are numerous tax pitfalls along the way were you can get absolutely ruined if you do it wrong. Exercising options can very easily become a non-trivial investment in actual cash.

None of these details are particularly predictable when you start out.

Ownership is ownership, but details matter. There is a long way between signing an options agreement and true ownership, liquid or otherwise. The longer that path, the less certain the payoff, and the less valuable the options.

Re: We need to rethink employee compensation

#140
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to also believe this, and would parrot it every chance I got, but I've since changed my tune. It's hard to value options. Really, really hard. Saying they're worthless, though, is lazy and counterproductive. If you're joining a seed-stage private company, then yeah, it probably makes sense to so heavily discount the options package that maybe it is close to worthless. But if you're joining a series C that's on…

If you're joining a series C that's close to IPO, they should be able to pay market-rate, or close to. You're also not really going to be getting a significant amount of stock from it, and it won't be worth all that much, relatively speaking.

I know a couple Boston-local companies with Series C's (one's on D now) that still try to play the "but options!" game as an excuse to not pay people. (A manager at one tried to guilt-trip me into working more by saying "you're one of our highest-paid engineers" at a number that was about market for a senior when I'd joined; they had multiple principal-level engineers on staff. When I left a few months later, my cash compensation jumped 25% when moving to a staff-level role.)

Options are not how you pay people. Options are how, along with good raises, you keep them from leaving as the good parts of working for a small, nimble company leach out.

Post reply on HN