> It's a scam when it's compared to how every other tech company does it.
Often but not always. I worked as a senior exec in a near-FAANG, large public corp and at one point the board changed the equity comp of my level and up execs to a pretty complex formula that was significantly back-ended but also had possible multipliers in the event our stock metrics exceeded the avg stock metrics of a composite of several similar firms in similar markets. At the time it was started, a lot of us assumed we might get about the same at the end of the day and maybe a little more but have to wait longer for it.
After four years, we actually maxed all the multipliers and ended up making >200% what we would have under the previous standard vesting. I heard that HR and the board comp committee felt they'd made a 'mistake' because we'd ended up getting so much more than the 'intended' range - however, we also worked our asses off and the companies stock was soaring, so they couldn't really complain. BTW, the net-effect of the back-loaded vesting and soaring stock was that we all ended up holding for longer than we otherwise might have which ended up adding nearly another 100%. Since we're already talking about pretty hefty comp numbers, post-multipliers plus a ~doubling of the stock price, it ended up being life-changing money. Good times, indeed.
So, not every 'non-standard' equity vesting schedule is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes they are structured as a set of trade-offs, where the downsides are balanced by upsides tied to certain things and need to be assessed on that basis.
> the net-effect of the back-loaded vesting and soaring stock was that we all ended up holding for longer than we otherwise might have which ended up adding nearly another 100%.
+1. Every amazonian i know who stayed at the company a while had crazy good equity because of the holding and stock growth. The historically stable growth really encouraged people to stay longer, and internally people always talked about how much the stock was when they joined. I know plenty of people who cashed out their equity and got houses in seattle area, in cash. Hearing these stories as a young engineer, and old alike really makes you feel compelled to stay and see where it goes for you. If you're young, you want to get in for when it goes up (FOMO), and if you've been there, you want to stay because you've been so well rewarded, and waiting a little longer will get you a bit more money because of refreshes and growth.
Often but not always. I worked as a senior exec in a near-FAANG, large public corp and at one point the board changed the equity comp of my level and up execs to a pretty complex formula that was significantly back-ended but also had possible multipliers in the event our stock metrics exceeded the avg stock metrics of a composite of several similar firms in similar markets. At the time it was started, a lot of us assumed we might get about the same at the end of the day and maybe a little more but have to wait longer for it.
After four years, we actually maxed all the multipliers and ended up making >200% what we would have under the previous standard vesting. I heard that HR and the board comp committee felt they'd made a 'mistake' because we'd ended up getting so much more than the 'intended' range - however, we also worked our asses off and the companies stock was soaring, so they couldn't really complain. BTW, the net-effect of the back-loaded vesting and soaring stock was that we all ended up holding for longer than we otherwise might have which ended up adding nearly another 100%. Since we're already talking about pretty hefty comp numbers, post-multipliers plus a ~doubling of the stock price, it ended up being life-changing money. Good times, indeed.
So, not every 'non-standard' equity vesting schedule is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes they are structured as a set of trade-offs, where the downsides are balanced by upsides tied to certain things and need to be assessed on that basis.