I wouldn't count the equity appreciation as compensation. you already own the capital, its your own capital gain, not income from employer at that point.
Yes, but you should value them at 100k, because it is the functional equivalent of getting a 100k cash bonus, that you (instead of diversifying) foolishly spent on buying a single company's stock.
You don't actually need to work at Facebook to sink 100k into buying Facebook stock (That you then forbid yourself from selling for 4 years).
> that you (instead of diversifying) foolishly spent on buying a single company's stock
So, it is actually a bit more complicated, and better than that, and long term stock grants act as a psuedo stock hedge.
This is a simplification, but imagine that there is stock worth X, that hs a 50% chance of the stock doubling in value, and a 50% chance of it crashing to 0$. You might think that this would be equivalent in expected value to X, but that is not true.
It is not true, because if the stock goes way down, you don't have to "accept" those losses. Instead, you can jump to another company, mid way through, and get back your previously high salary.
In that way you can capture the upside potential, while also being protected against the downside losses, in that if the stock goes down, you just jump ship, and get a high salary somewhere else.
This is because if the stock goes way down, and you are 1 year into your 4 year vest, then you can leave the company, and get a high compensation package somewhere else.
Do you understand how this makes it so you have free downside protection, from those other 3 years, because you can leave and get the high salary somewhere else, if the stock crashes?
Since RSUs vest over time, the penny-for-penny equivalent financial transaction for receiving $100K worth of RSUs over 4 years, would be for me to receive $100K of cash compensation over 4 years, and using it to buy stock (That I can't sell for X months).
There's no advantage to RSUs. Cash is better in every way, because, at worst, you can invest it in the exact same allocation that your RSUs are invested in. Any gain from them rising in price could have been realized by investing cash. Any loss from them falling in price is a real, not a paper loss. [1]
I'll take $100 of cash over $100 of RSUs any day. I probably wouldn't take $80 of cash over $100 of RSUs, though.
[1] Unless for some weird reason, you are accounting your personal finances, where a 4-year stock grant is realized in year 1. If you are doing this, you should stop, because it is not an accurate way to do accounting.
> the penny-for-penny equivalent financial transaction for receiving $100K worth of RSUs over 4 years, would be for me to receive $100K of cash
You still dont understand. Let me work this out for you, year by year.
Lets say that the stock grant is 25k a year, over 4 years. But there is a 50% chance, after year 1, of the stock doubling and staying there, and a 50% chance of it going to 0. IE, it will be worth 50k or 0$, which is an expected value of 25k.
So you have 100k of stock, and 25k vests on year 1.
Situation 1: you win the coin flip, and the stock doubles. Your 25k that you received, is now worth 50k. BUT, you now have an ADDITIONAL 150k that is unvested. The unvested stock has increased in value! If you stay for 3 more years, you get 200k in total.
Total value: 200k, over 4 years.
Now, lets look at situation 2.
In situation 2, the stock crashes to 0, after 1 year. Your 25k vest, is now worth 0$. As is, the next 3 year vest is also worth 0.
But here is the trick. What you do now, is that you quit your job. You do not stay at the company for 3 more years, to get the 0$ of stock. Instead, you get different job with stock that vests at 25k a year.
Total value: 0$ for the first year, + 25k/year at job 2. Which equals 75k.
Do you see how this is different?
You absolutely could NOT get the same value as this, if you were paid in cash. Because if you were paid in cash, then you would realize the full losses of situation 2.
> Any gain from them rising in price could have been realized by investing cash
No, actually. In situation 1, I receive 200k, and in situation 2 I receive 75k, because I am protected by the downside risk, by the fact that if the stock crashes to 0, I can leave the company and get my salary higher again.
This is not possible by investing 100k from the beginning.
Yes, you're right, RSUs are better as a signing bonus, in a bull market. (In a bear market, plus a harder job market, you would have been better off locking cash in for your comp - if switching jobs after a year would not get you an equivalent RSU/cash grant)
Once the four year vesting cliff is done, though, the annual top-ups aren't much different from cash (Because if the stock inflates fantastically, you will get fewer RSUs next year).
Agree. It comes down to if you think equity is underpriced. If you think its underpriced, take the equity. If it later becomes worthless, you jump ship, unless they offer more cash to compensate. So, yes you have some extra value tied up in your option to just leave before vesting. If its overpriced from the beginning, ask for cash in the beginning.
High package elsewhere is not free money... Also leaving the company isn’t free (you lose unvested shares, atleast). this isn’t arbitrage. even arbitrage usually has some carrying risk in between the two transactions.
It’s basically guaranteed at this point. And you don’t own the capital, you don’t start getting the massively appreciated grants until you are a few years in
