3 ms·

This would be true ... but only because people don't understand how to leverage and negotiate using their power. Engineers have historically been unable to orga

This would be true ... but only because people don't understand how to leverage and negotiate using their power. Engineers have historically been unable to organize large movements and work together. The size of most of these unicorns is still under 2000 people, with less than 4-500 engineers. This means that if you really want to you can "lead a revolt" Think about it -- any engineer at these companies can easily leave... but imagine if half the engineers left. The company would go down in flames. People need to work together to have companies pass policies that allow them to have longer periods to exercise. BTW anyone that understands corporate law needs to understand that the fact that you "must" exercise your options by exorbitant amounts is simply a (very dirty) retention tactic. The company can choose not to buy back your unexercised options at par-value for as long as it wants. The fact that it is "policy" to buy un-exercised options is complete bullshit.

maxxxxx 10y ago
Pretty much every "policy" you are told about by a company is bullshit.
matthewmcg 10y ago
"The company can choose not to buy back your unexercised options at par-value for as long as it wants." That's usually not right for incentive options. Check your option agreement. Most will say that the stock option automatically expires or converts to a non-qualified option if not exercised within 90 days of termination without the company having to decide to do anything. What you are describing is more commonly associated with restricted stock, where the employee "owns" the shares, subject to the company's right to buy them back at par in certain situations.
- stanfordkid 10y ago
  It is a legal rule that the company decided to impose in it's corporate charter, they can amend it to be whatever they want. It's arbitrary and not a fundamental part of US/State corporate law (like say race discrimination or workers comp). If they wanted to put a law in that you need to spin in circles and tap dance or else your stock automatically gets reclaimed they could create a clause in their charter for that too. This is what people need to understand: Rules change because people wake up and push for them to be changed. Lawyers have created all sorts of bullshit to protect the employer and that has become engrained as "best practice"
  - matthewmcg 10y ago
    No, this is a provision in the agreement that's driven by the tax code and IRS regulations. It is required if you want the option to be an incentive stock option. It's not arbitrary. You're right that you are free to to negotiate a different exercise window prior to accepting your stock grant (and a lot of more progressive companies are offering this). You just can't, under current tax law, get the sometimes beneficial ISO treatment with a longer window. There's a nice summary of the situation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9254299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9254299
    - stanfordkid 10y ago
      You are right -- it's not as black and white as I described. That being said -- It seems like with some "legal engineering" it can certainly be ameliorated (as was demonstrated by Pinterest). My main point is that if people push for their rights then it will incentivize companies to do the legal engineering that is necessary.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

maxxxxx 10y ago

Pretty much every "policy" you are told about by a company is bullshit.

matthewmcg 10y ago

"The company can choose not to buy back your unexercised options at par-value for as long as it wants." That's usually not right for incentive options. Check your option agreement. Most will say that the stock option automatically expires or converts to a non-qualified option if not exercised within 90 days of termination without the company having to decide to do anything. What you are describing is more commonly associated with restricted stock, where the employee "owns" the shares, subject to the company's right to buy them back at par in certain situations.

stanfordkid 10y ago
It is a legal rule that the company decided to impose in it's corporate charter, they can amend it to be whatever they want. It's arbitrary and not a fundamental part of US/State corporate law (like say race discrimination or workers comp). If they wanted to put a law in that you need to spin in circles and tap dance or else your stock automatically gets reclaimed they could create a clause in their charter for that too. This is what people need to understand: Rules change because people wake up and push for them to be changed. Lawyers have created all sorts of bullshit to protect the employer and that has become engrained as "best practice"
- matthewmcg 10y ago
  No, this is a provision in the agreement that's driven by the tax code and IRS regulations. It is required if you want the option to be an incentive stock option. It's not arbitrary. You're right that you are free to to negotiate a different exercise window prior to accepting your stock grant (and a lot of more progressive companies are offering this). You just can't, under current tax law, get the sometimes beneficial ISO treatment with a longer window. There's a nice summary of the situation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9254299 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9254299
  - stanfordkid 10y ago
    You are right -- it's not as black and white as I described. That being said -- It seems like with some "legal engineering" it can certainly be ameliorated (as was demonstrated by Pinterest). My main point is that if people push for their rights then it will incentivize companies to do the legal engineering that is necessary.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]