4 ms·

You can’t “just grant stocks” though without subjecting employees to massive tax liabilities on non-liquid shares. That’s the primary reason options and RSUs ex

You can’t “just grant stocks” though without subjecting employees to massive tax liabilities on non-liquid shares. That’s the primary reason options and RSUs exist. Unless I didn’t understand what you were saying

lovich 4y ago
I don’t think you’re wrong but that’s part of the trade off? If you grant stocks that means the company makes you part of the investor class subject to investor class level regulation. That leads to having investor class level benefits if the company succeeds. If you’re implying that the convoluted equity packages companies offer as standard to employees now is better for them, then why aren’t founders or investors taking similar deals? I think that’s really the heart of the issue. Founders and investors are taking one type of deal, but then telling their employees they need to take a deal so bad that they would be insulted if you offered it to them.
- tfehring 4y ago
  Founders generally do give themselves options instead of shares for tax purposes. The reason investors get shares directly is that they’re buying them, not earning them as income. There are plenty of ways to screw over unsophisticated minority shareholders in a funding round or acquisition even if they have the same class of ownership as the founders. The main disadvantage of options for employees is that they have to pay to exercise them, but the company can trivially make this a non-issue by setting the exercise period to 10 years.
tpxl 4y ago
> You can’t “just grant stocks” though without subjecting employees to massive tax liabilities on non-liquid shares Just pay their taxes then? If you give an employee 100 stocks, valued at 100$ each, with a tax rate of 25% - 7500$ net wealth, you should rather give the employee 75 stocks and 1875$ (==tax on 75 stocks at 25%) - 7500$ net wealth.

lovich 4y ago

I don’t think you’re wrong but that’s part of the trade off? If you grant stocks that means the company makes you part of the investor class subject to investor class level regulation. That leads to having investor class level benefits if the company succeeds. If you’re implying that the convoluted equity packages companies offer as standard to employees now is better for them, then why aren’t founders or investors taking similar deals? I think that’s really the heart of the issue. Founders and investors are taking one type of deal, but then telling their employees they need to take a deal so bad that they would be insulted if you offered it to them.

tfehring 4y ago
Founders generally do give themselves options instead of shares for tax purposes. The reason investors get shares directly is that they’re buying them, not earning them as income. There are plenty of ways to screw over unsophisticated minority shareholders in a funding round or acquisition even if they have the same class of ownership as the founders. The main disadvantage of options for employees is that they have to pay to exercise them, but the company can trivially make this a non-issue by setting the exercise period to 10 years.

tpxl 4y ago

> You can’t “just grant stocks” though without subjecting employees to massive tax liabilities on non-liquid shares Just pay their taxes then? If you give an employee 100 stocks, valued at 100$ each, with a tax rate of 25% - 7500$ net wealth, you should rather give the employee 75 stocks and 1875$ (==tax on 75 stocks at 25%) - 7500$ net wealth.