4 ms·
Just one addition to all the other critiques in this thread. "The challenge in broadly adopting the 10-year exercise rule for all employees at the outset of th
by akkartik 10y ago
Just one addition to all the other critiques in this thread.
"The challenge in broadly adopting the 10-year exercise rule for all employees at the outset of the company as a solution is that it disadvantages employees who choose to make a long-term commitment to the company relative to those who leave."
Employees who stay longer get more options than employees who leave early. I don't see the problem.
- Zigurd 10y agoIt's only a problem if you quickly get stingy about options. And then your early employees, expecting to get topped up, leave. In a well-managed company, with a CFO who is prompting the right moves, it isn't a problem.
- maxxxxx 10y agoDon't a lot of companies give you an initial number of options and then only sometimes more? That's how it was at startups I talked to in 1999 and 2000.
- akkartik 10y agoWell, if you stay 4 years and don't get an equity refresh that's a pretty strong signal they want you to move on. Starting year 5 you'd be taking a pay cut. So I imagine it would be a rare outcome. (Of course, this only holds under current conventions. With the OP's proposal companies would have a strong incentive to make life miserable for employees past year 7 or so, because those who left wouldn't be able to take their stock with them.)