You're missing the most important benefit: pre-vesting appreciation.
Say you are granted $600k that vests over 4 years. Well lucky you, the stock has 1.5x after year 1, doubled at year 2 and tripled by year 3! That means you've cumulatively vested $225k at year 1, $525k at year 2, and $975k at year 3. If you had cash only compensation, you would have received a total of $450k for that same time period.
I feel like this is the most illuminating comment in this thread, so, thank you.
That said, if I can choose between receiving $600k in cash today, and receiving $600k worth of public company stock today with restrictions on when I can sell it, then I will choose the cash, because it is worth AT LEAST AS MUCH as the public company stock (because, again, cash is freely exchangeable to public company stock without restrictions, and the opposite does not hold true in this hypothetical).
If you feel that there's a good chance that the stock of the company you're working for is going to tank, take that as a sign that you should work somewhere else ;)
> If you feel that there's a good chance that the stock of the company you're working for is going to tank, take that as a sign that you should work somewhere else ;)
If you get $600k in cash, and you immediately exchange that into $600k in company stock (with no restrictions on when you can sell that stock), how could that possibly be a worse deal than getting $600k in company stock with restrictions on when you can sell?
Seems like a strawman, as no company is giving you the cash as a lump sum payment like that up front. Even if you get the option, which mostly you don't, it's between:
1. A grant at $Xk, converted to shares on start date and vesting proportionally over 4 years
or...
2. A salary bump equivalent to the grant in (1), paid out ~bi-weekly at (1/104)*$Xk. 104 being the amount of bi-weekly pay periods to occur over a 4 year span.
It's not a strawman, it's a direct response to grandparent comment in this thread, who said:
> getting the $100k worth of stocks a year is at least as good as just getting the cash
I am arguing that getting $100k worth of cash is always at least as good as getting $100k worth of stocks. You're saying that it's not realistic to have the option to get cash instead of stocks, and that's true but it's besides the point.
Say you are granted $600k that vests over 4 years. Well lucky you, the stock has 1.5x after year 1, doubled at year 2 and tripled by year 3! That means you've cumulatively vested $225k at year 1, $525k at year 2, and $975k at year 3. If you had cash only compensation, you would have received a total of $450k for that same time period.