Misleading title and premise: The author makes it seem as if something will be explained for people who are not 'financially-savvy', but nothing is explained. In fact it is made more complex. Which is fine, but still it was kind of misleading. Solid advice to get financial advice nonetheless.
Can someone explain this part to my/some-of-us like I am five?:
"Which muppets advised them to spend hard-earned cash to exercise a non-liquid, highly volatile financial instrument? There is no world where the (relatively) small tax breaks involved justify the expected value equation, given that Good Technology was nowhere near exit."
> exercise a non-liquid, highly volatile financial instrument?
Buy something that can't be converted quickly and easily back into cash (non-liquid), and whose value changes a lot (highly volatile). This means if it starts to go down, you can't get rid of it fast enough and you stand to lose a lot.
> the expected value equation, given that Good Technology was nowhere near exit
The value equation would be, the outcome ($) times the likelihood of that outcome. So the outcome might be big, but the chance for it is perceived to be small (given that they were nowhere near exit), so the expected value is not very high.
Boils down to they spent their hard-earned cash buying something that might lose a lot of value, is unlikely to be a big win, and that they, once they buy it, are basically stuck with it. No wonder he disses the advisors (note all of this is just explanation of what is said, without judging if his premises are correct).
Thank you for the explanation. Would 'buy something' in this case mean to choose options over 'normal' compensation (salary)? Or were employees advised to buy extra options in the company at some point?
Also, I thought there was a difference between options and equity and the assumption I have heard some people have is that 'equity' is safer than 'options', but if I think about it now it seems as if options are just what equity consists of. Is there a difference and does one consist of the other? While I understand that I should probably consult Duck Duck Go on this some more, I still ask seeing as you seem to be knowledgeable on the subject.
I thought the same. The post does not explain anything at all, just dumps a lot of jargon.
I think it says employees are convinced to spend their money on options/equity in the startup they work for, but a startup is a gamble, most don't work out. Specifically, in the Good Technology the author feels the valuation given in the buy was nowhere near the point at which the investors/founders had hoped to exit?
i would _guess_ it means that (in this specific scenario): folks miscalculated the perceived tax-break benefits offered (due to option exercise at the time of vesting) vis-a-vis using their money more profitably somewhere else.
But if you assign your options the same value as magic beans (ie. zero) and find that the job is worth doing anyway, then you can avoid filling your head with a lot of financial mumbo jumbo.
Can someone explain this part to my/some-of-us like I am five?:
"Which muppets advised them to spend hard-earned cash to exercise a non-liquid, highly volatile financial instrument? There is no world where the (relatively) small tax breaks involved justify the expected value equation, given that Good Technology was nowhere near exit."
I have no idea what it says here.