4 ms·

> That's an extra 600k of upside exposure. It's also an extra 600k of downside exposure.

MichaelBurge 4y ago
No, the downside exposure is limited because you can quit your job. You don't have to actually eat a stock drop loss by working for 4 years and vesting a loser, you can change to another job and reset your basis.
- MajimasEyepatch 4y ago
  True, but there's an opportunity cost to having worked at Company X on the assumption that your RSUs would appreciate in value, when in fact they decreased and you could have worked at Company Y instead.
  - kodah 4y ago
    Anecdotally, I've never had RSUs depreciate to a point at which I metaphorically lose money for my efforts. This might happen at startups more often and megacorps less often.
    - akavi 4y ago
      Then this past year you've gotten lucky. We were in an unprecedented bull run for tech stocks for a decade plus. No guarantee that continues. Markets are anti-inductive and past performance is no guarantee of future results.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - asimpletune 4y ago
      This has been the case for a while, but also people who started at FB two years ago did very badly. Again, usually it works out.
- RHSeeger 4y ago
  You were being paid less because you received those RSUs. The downside is set at the difference between what you got paid and what you would have been paid had there not been RSUs in the equation.
  - valzam 4y ago
    I think the reality is though that is is extremely difficult to find a job that would pay a comparable total comp in all cash. You choice isn't 200k cash, 200k rsu vs 400k cash since the 400k cash offer doesn't really exist. What is more, at least in Europe and Australia and ignoring tiny seed stage startups, the places that give out substantial equity actually pay MORE in cash than more traditional, regional companies.
arcticbull 4y ago
RSUs have a $0 cost basis - these aren't options we're talking about. Yes it's technically a $600K downside risk but if you recognize anywhere close to that your company went bankrupt and that won't factor into the conversation since you won't have a job anymore. This kind of up-front grant is a wonderful asymmetric bet. You get $600K skin in the game on day 1. If the stock goes up 20% you get a 20% gain on the whole amount before you even own it. If it goes down materially, you're welcome to quit - but more often what happens is actually the company issues a refresh grant to make up for it - since they don't want you to quit. If it goes back up you now have a ton more stock on the way back up. You get to earn appreciation on the whole amount before you earn it so up to 4 years early. You have nothing of your own at risk except your time. Things go well, you can do amazingly well. If things go bad, you lost a year or two and you can wander down the street for another lotto ticket.

No, the downside exposure is limited because you can quit your job. You don't have to actually eat a stock drop loss by working for 4 years and vesting a loser, you can change to another job and reset your basis.

MajimasEyepatch 4y ago
True, but there's an opportunity cost to having worked at Company X on the assumption that your RSUs would appreciate in value, when in fact they decreased and you could have worked at Company Y instead.
- kodah 4y ago
  Anecdotally, I've never had RSUs depreciate to a point at which I metaphorically lose money for my efforts. This might happen at startups more often and megacorps less often.
  - akavi 4y ago
    Then this past year you've gotten lucky. We were in an unprecedented bull run for tech stocks for a decade plus. No guarantee that continues. Markets are anti-inductive and past performance is no guarantee of future results.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - asimpletune 4y ago
    This has been the case for a while, but also people who started at FB two years ago did very badly. Again, usually it works out.
RHSeeger 4y ago
You were being paid less because you received those RSUs. The downside is set at the difference between what you got paid and what you would have been paid had there not been RSUs in the equation.
- valzam 4y ago
  I think the reality is though that is is extremely difficult to find a job that would pay a comparable total comp in all cash. You choice isn't 200k cash, 200k rsu vs 400k cash since the 400k cash offer doesn't really exist. What is more, at least in Europe and Australia and ignoring tiny seed stage startups, the places that give out substantial equity actually pay MORE in cash than more traditional, regional companies.

arcticbull 4y ago

RSUs have a $0 cost basis - these aren't options we're talking about. Yes it's technically a $600K downside risk but if you recognize anywhere close to that your company went bankrupt and that won't factor into the conversation since you won't have a job anymore. This kind of up-front grant is a wonderful asymmetric bet. You get $600K skin in the game on day 1. If the stock goes up 20% you get a 20% gain on the whole amount before you even own it. If it goes down materially, you're welcome to quit - but more often what happens is actually the company issues a refresh grant to make up for it - since they don't want you to quit. If it goes back up you now have a ton more stock on the way back up. You get to earn appreciation on the whole amount before you earn it so up to 4 years early. You have nothing of your own at risk except your time. Things go well, you can do amazingly well. If things go bad, you lost a year or two and you can wander down the street for another lotto ticket.