2 ms·
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 investo
by 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 agoFounders 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.