3 ms·
Well really at the end of the day all that matters is whether this statement (from the video) is true: > Even if you joined Facebook as employee #1000, so you
by birken 12y ago
Well really at the end of the day all that matters is whether this statement (from the video) is true:
> Even if you joined Facebook as employee #1000, so you joined it in like 2009, you still made 20 million dollars.
I find it hard to believe that it is true, but obviously both you and the speaker know much more about it than I do. However I've also seem people commonly overstate things like this.
Some basic math:
$200 billion current value / ($15 billion value in 2009 * 50% discount factor from preferred to common) = 26.6x
So already assuming the most optimistic things [1], to get to $20 million dollars today, you'd have needed to get the equivalent of $750k worth of RSUs in 2009. Even vesting over 4 years that seems like an extremely high amount, high by a factor of about 5-10x of what I'd guess.
And don't get me wrong, I have no doubt people who joined Facebook in 2009 earned quite a bit of money assuming they held onto the stock. But 20 million dollars is a big number.
---
[1]: The employee joined in 2009, you still work there, you haven't sold most of your stock (which is impossible because you had to sell some in the IPO to pay your taxes, but whatever)
- prostoalex 12y agoRight, Dustin assumes a 0.1% grant for employee #100 and a 0.01% grant for employee #1000, but * typically at that stage those levels of equity are reserved for highly desirable hires that would otherwise be tough to get * this discounts the effects of dilution that each new investment round (as well as IPO) brings along I think his point was to provide a ballpark figure to illustrate the main idea - you might have more impact (and receive appropriate compensation) even when joining a late-stage company, so don't dismiss that opportunity without at least considering it. Taxation rarely plays into such arguments, since by the time the company reaches employee #1000 it's likely to be global, and similar employees with similar compensation packages in California, Washington, Canada or Switzerland are likely to see substantially different after-tax amounts.