4 ms·
This is an old post. It's worth noting that 10/20/30/40 grants did not work (duh!!) and companies (at least the smart ones) have moved away from them. It's also
by choppaface 11y ago
This is an old post. It's worth noting that 10/20/30/40 grants did not work (duh!!) and companies (at least the smart ones) have moved away from them. It's also worth noting 83b / early exercise is very common now (hurray!) and can essentially double the value of the equity to the employee (only if they can take advantage of it). ISOs are very toxic.
One last piece of advice if you're trying to value the equity in an offer: keep in mind IPOs usually require share prices >= $10 and reverse splits are a favored tool to make that happen.
- Pyxl101 11y agoWhat was the problem with 10/20/30/40 grants and what kind of vesting schedule is used instead?
- throwitfaraway 11y ago10/20/30/40 is insane without double trigger. There's already enough stories of people being pushed out of their stock. The value a super-early employee provides is disproportionately in the first couple years, so backweighting it is quite unfair. Even if the employee is in for the long haul, the company may find it economical to terminate before the compensation increases.
- choppaface 11y agoUniform vesting (1 year cliff, 25% per year) is typical. Some companies (startups and post-IPO) were doing non-uniform vesting in part because the company's valuation was rapidly soaring (and in some cases crashed shortly thereafter). Some did this for refresher grants. The evidence I've seen is that it doesn't help with retention. Well, maybe it helped retain certain execs implementing the programs...