31–40 of 283 posts
My cynical read of this is that they are changing the vesting schedule to quarterly (instead of monthly, which is more typical), and burying the lede on that by painting this as a benefit to employees (when it really only impacts new employees).
Does anyone know if this is true or not?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's common in the industry to see RSU grants shown as say, "$50k" - but that's $50k in stock as of the grant time. Once the grant is finalized, the value of the RSU grant grows with the stock. ie, if the stock is $100, then it's the same as 500 share grant. This Blind post is saying that Instacart/Stripe says you only get $50k no matter the price of stock? How would you even structure that kind of grant? Why…
I work at a smaller company, and here we convert the $ price to a number of shares by taking the 100 day VWAP of the stock from the date of the board meeting where your grant is approved.
ESPP-like programs, on the other hand, are always dollar denominated and exchanged at a set rate at the end of the offering period.
Not surprised. I'm probably a fair bit older than the average HN reader (finished undergrad in 1995). This is the hottest job market I've seen since the height of the dotcom bubble (mid 1999 to early 2000), and if it continues along it's current trajectory it will pass that by year end.
Wouldn't this move incentivize employees seeking short term employment thus diluting stocks given out to existing long term employees?
The 1 year cliff never really made sense... It effectively gave the company a discount on employees who stayed only 364 days - or to look at it another way, a 'trial period' of 1 year where the pay was substantially less.
Am I the only one that doesn't see that as unreasonable? It's not like you aren't accruing equity during that time; you still get the full year's worth of options at the 365 day mark. And the ramp-up time with new engineers can be so long that the first year isn't nearly as productive as consecutive ones. A buddy of mine who worked at a giant company (not strictly tech but you'd recognize it) said he heard from his b…
The 1 year cliff never really made sense... It effectively gave the company a discount on employees who stayed only 364 days - or to look at it another way, a 'trial period' of 1 year where the pay was substantially less.
Sometimes, companies include in their annual reports the conditions of employee shareholding plans. In Europe, for management, plans with 1 year vesting and 1-3 years blocking period is a practice. This means that you cannot exercise the options until 2-4 years in. Further, all unexercised options are forfeited if the employee moves to the competition within a defined timeframe.
Good, pro-employee move. Next, I'd like to see pre-IPO startups offer longer periods to exercise shares when you leave. 90 days being standard is way too low.
I totally agree with the above, and have commented on it many times before, but note the 90 day standard is because that is the maximum amount of time allowed for ISOs by the IRS. To allow for conversion after that time (e.g. 5-10 years seems to be what a lot of people are pushing for), the ISOs convert into non-qualified options. Still worth it in my opinion. Even better would be for the IRS to change the law (not s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if your RSUs are based on a fixed amount (which I believe is the case for all the new hires in DD) and not no of units That's quite surprising. Generally RSU comp is based on a particular monetary amount, but converted to no. of units upon issuance based on market prices (usually at/close to start date). Is this not the case with DoorDash? If that's the case that seems... awful? That's a cash bonus with a downside.
What I've seen is generally the conversion happens once for the whole package, when you sign. So if the stock grows during your vesting period, the value increases (goes both way obviously). I think here they are mentioning value based, which means that instead of being given X amount of shares/rsu over 4 years, you're given "the equivalent of $X" at the begining of each years. So after 1 year, of the stock doubled i…
The entire point is to encourage people to stay by letting their wealth grow with the company? A scheme like that seems wildly counterproductive.
Good, pro-employee move. Next, I'd like to see pre-IPO startups offer longer periods to exercise shares when you leave. 90 days being standard is way too low.
The 1 year cliff never really made sense... It effectively gave the company a discount on employees who stayed only 364 days - or to look at it another way, a 'trial period' of 1 year where the pay was substantially less.