3 ms·

Still leaves ~600mm in losses. Which is still greater than the ~350mm in losses last year. The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money"

Still leaves ~600mm in losses. Which is still greater than the ~350mm in losses last year. The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money" is toxic.

chipgap98 9y ago
Why? Don't most companies separate out their stock based compensation expenses?
- nl 9y ago
  Of course they do. And most separate out special expenses too.
nl 9y ago
The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money" is toxic. Stock-based compensation isn't the same as cash. It has both costs and benefits, but saying it is "toxic" seems overreach.
- rrdharan 9y ago
  I'm not the person who wrote that but I think you're misinterpreting the statement. I believe user addicted was trying to say is that companies are attempting to treat a large portion of compensation paid out to employees as somehow not material or meaningful, and that practice is toxic.
  - addicted 9y ago
    Yes that is exactly what I was trying to convey. They are obviously not the same thing (as the comment about trying to pay rent, for example, tries to point out). But at the same time, a lot of companies try to pass them off as not meaningful which I don't think is helpful even if toxic may be too strong a term. (SNAP's figures do that literally, giving us NM for change % numbees affected by the stock compensation).
WillPostForFood 9y ago
Speaking as someone who has received equity several times, it is not real money.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money" is toxic. Equity is not money, and employee-owned equity often isn't easy to convert to money, especially in non-public firms (but even in public firms, employees are often bound by insider-trading rules.) Of course, costs associated with equity-based compensation are real costs to the firm, independent of the fact that equity is not money.
atom-morgan 9y ago
Am I the only one who finds the % change between $350mm and $600mm marked as "not meaningful" to be a bit odd?
nothrabannosir 9y ago
I was struggling to make rent last year. My landlord wasn’t very interested in my options.

Still leaves ~600mm in losses. Which is still greater than the ~350mm in losses last year. The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money" is toxic.

chipgap98 9y ago

Why? Don't most companies separate out their stock based compensation expenses?

nl 9y ago
Of course they do. And most separate out special expenses too.

nl 9y ago

The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money" is toxic. Stock-based compensation isn't the same as cash. It has both costs and benefits, but saying it is "toxic" seems overreach.

rrdharan 9y ago
I'm not the person who wrote that but I think you're misinterpreting the statement. I believe user addicted was trying to say is that companies are attempting to treat a large portion of compensation paid out to employees as somehow not material or meaningful, and that practice is toxic.
- addicted 9y ago
  Yes that is exactly what I was trying to convey. They are obviously not the same thing (as the comment about trying to pay rent, for example, tries to point out). But at the same time, a lot of companies try to pass them off as not meaningful which I don't think is helpful even if toxic may be too strong a term. (SNAP's figures do that literally, giving us NM for change % numbees affected by the stock compensation).

WillPostForFood 9y ago

Speaking as someone who has received equity several times, it is not real money.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money" is toxic. Equity is not money, and employee-owned equity often isn't easy to convert to money, especially in non-public firms (but even in public firms, employees are often bound by insider-trading rules.) Of course, costs associated with equity-based compensation are real costs to the firm, independent of the fact that equity is not money.

atom-morgan 9y ago

Am I the only one who finds the % change between $350mm and $600mm marked as "not meaningful" to be a bit odd?

nothrabannosir 9y ago

I was struggling to make rent last year. My landlord wasn’t very interested in my options.