←back to thread

656 points mooreds | 8 comments | | HN request time: 1.014s | source | bottom
Show context
cj ◴[] No.43675640[source]
As our 30 person startup has grown, I made a conscious decision to stop pitching stock options as a primary component of compensation.

Which means the job offer still includes stock options, but during the job offer call we don’t talk up the future value of the stock options. We don’t create any expectation that the options will be worth anything.

Upside from a founder perspective is we end up giving away less equity than we otherwise might. Downside from a founder perspective is you need up increase cash compensation to close the gap in some cases, where you might otherwise talk up the value of options.

Main upside for the employee is they don’t need to worry too much about stock options intricacies because they don’t view them as a primary aspect of their compensation.

In my experience, almost everyone prefers cash over startup stock options. And from an employee perspective, it’s almost always the right decision to place very little value ($0) on the stock option component of your offer. The vast majority of cases stock options end up worthless.

replies(19): >>43675676 #>>43675759 #>>43675967 #>>43676111 #>>43676216 #>>43676383 #>>43676450 #>>43676463 #>>43676503 #>>43676526 #>>43676834 #>>43676885 #>>43676986 #>>43677139 #>>43677589 #>>43678377 #>>43679184 #>>43680072 #>>43684272 #
Swizec ◴[] No.43675676[source]
> The vast majority of cases stock options end up worthless

My fav manager had a great way of phrasing this: "There are more ways for your options to be worthless than to make you rich"

But I also personally know plenty of people who made off great with their startup equity. They're def not worthless.

Ultimately I think you should never take an uncomfortable pay-cut to join a company and you should maximize your stock compensation on top of that. Don't forget other types of equity – brand, exposure to good problems, network.

replies(3): >>43675858 #>>43675998 #>>43676176 #
crote ◴[] No.43675998[source]
I think the main thing to remember is that you should assume they are worthless.

There's probably something like a 99% chance they are worthless, a 0.9% chance they are worth a decent holiday, a 0.09% chance it'll let you retire early, and a 0.01% it'll make you somewhat rich. Worst of all, unless you're the CxO you have very little control over the outcome.

Equity is a nice bonus, but you might just as well treat it like the company giving you a lottery ticket for Christmas. Nobody is going to take a significant pay cut or work 80 hours a week for a lottery ticket, so don't do it solely for the stock options either.

replies(4): >>43676480 #>>43676769 #>>43677671 #>>43683541 #
aetherson ◴[] No.43676769[source]
I've worked at 8 companies, 3 have resulted in value from equity (all granted pre-IPO), all of them in certainly much larger than "a decent holiday" level.

I think people have updated to be much too negative on the prospect of equity paying out. It's obviously much better than 1%, at least if you work at anything other than extremely early-stage companies.

replies(4): >>43677192 #>>43677333 #>>43677353 #>>43682900 #
scarface_74 ◴[] No.43677333[source]
Well statistics shows that it is best to value equity at 0. I will take equity in a non public company. But not in exchange for cash compensation at my market rate.
replies(1): >>43677537 #
aetherson ◴[] No.43677537[source]
I assure you that statistics do not show it is best to value equity at 0.
replies(2): >>43677999 #>>43679656 #
1. guappa ◴[] No.43679656[source]
Care to show your source?
replies(1): >>43681373 #
2. aetherson ◴[] No.43681373[source]
I'm honestly stunned that people here are performatively math-illiterate.

Some companies experience liquidity events. Therefor the value of equity in those companies is positive. Some companies go out of business. Therefor the value of equity in those companies is zero.

If N is the ante hoc chance that a company will experience a liquidity event, then:

N * X + (1 - N) * 0 = value of liquidity

X is positive. 0 < N < 1.

Therefor the value is positive.

replies(3): >>43682362 #>>43682841 #>>43689552 #
3. dcow ◴[] No.43682362[source]
People aren’t saying the chance is literally zero. They are saying it is low enough that they can’t consider it reliable comp for income purposes in their own personal situations. I can’t say my experience has been any different so I don’t blame them. People commenting aren’t math illiterate. I’m kinda amazed you are taking things so literally when it’s so obvious to anybody reading how to interpret the discussion.
replies(1): >>43685163 #
4. scarface_74 ◴[] No.43682841[source]
And then take into account the risk/reward premium and alternatives.
5. aetherson ◴[] No.43685163{3}[source]
They sure are insistent on it being literally zero for people who don't think it's literally zero.

If you like, I'm happy to update my claim to, "startup equity often has non-trivial value, say, >$1000 per year."

replies(1): >>43687524 #
6. dcow ◴[] No.43687524{4}[source]
Add a few zeros and I think we’d be in the right ballpark. You have to make up for the haircut before you start counting positive net value.
7. guappa ◴[] No.43689552[source]
I hoped you had some real data, but all you had was a joke.

Ok it's not zero. Is it 0.0000000000000000000000001?

Surely you're aware that obtaining 0.50$ is not going to have a large impact? Even if the sum is 3000$ the impact is extremely limited.

But you had to go and be a r/iamverysmart material because you actually have no more information than me.

Also learn to spell therefore please.

replies(1): >>43692508 #
8. aetherson ◴[] No.43692508{3}[source]
You played a stupid game, you won a stupid prize.

Something is different than nothing. When people repeatedly insist that something and nothing are the same, they get trivial answers.

And learn which side of the digits a dollar sign goes on please.