←back to thread

656 points mooreds | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.534s | source
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 #
__turbobrew__ ◴[] No.43675759[source]
Even if the company has a successful exit lots of times the founders have different stock class than employees which allows them to cook the books in creative ways where employee stocks are devalued without affecting founder stocks.

I personally went through a successful exit of a company where I was one of the early engineers and was privy to orchestrating the sale (working with potential buyers and consultants) and saw this happen.

I now am granted stocks which are traded on the NYSE so nobody can cook the books without commiting securities fraud.

replies(7): >>43675832 #>>43676272 #>>43676802 #>>43676851 #>>43677057 #>>43678735 #>>43680644 #
babyshake ◴[] No.43676851[source]
One other trick I learned about and should warn others about - getting an offer for shares (an employee level %) where there is in fact no options pool and existing shares will be diluted for every new employee who joins the team. I got such an offer, and not only was this information not given to me until I asked about any events aside from funding rounds that would be dilutive, but it was presented as standard operating procedure.
replies(3): >>43676900 #>>43679894 #>>43681821 #
gruez ◴[] No.43676900[source]
>getting an offer for shares (an employee level %) where there is in fact no options pool and existing shares will be diluted for every new employee who joins the team

How's this different than if an option pool exists? The more people have options, the further the pie will be split up. Having an option pool or not doesn't change this.

replies(2): >>43677052 #>>43680650 #
pc86 ◴[] No.43680650[source]
When the option pool is created that is the dilutive event, so new employees getting their grants doesn't result in current employees being diluted, because the entire pool was already taken into account.
replies(1): >>43683149 #
1. CPLX ◴[] No.43683149[source]
But that’s not true. An options pool containing shares owned by the company is the same from a “how much of the company do I own” perspective as unissued or even uncontemplated shares.

The only real advantage to the options pool is ease of management of the shares. There’s a lot of paperwork around issuing new shares you don’t want to do it every time you hire a programmer. And I guess you could argue that telling people the pool exists lets them not be surprised by the future dilution when they’re issued. But the pool itself hasn’t diluted anyone.

Dilution is created by increasing the number of shares held by the company’s owners. Actions like issuing shares from a pool (or the inverse, buyback or cancellation of grants) affect every shareholders relative dilution.