What do you mean by back-weighted and how is it fucked up? Genuinely don’t know.
I worked for Apple on the Genius Bar in the Uk and we had the same schedule. I didn’t see it as a bad thing and when it was time to leave to become a software engineer I just had to weigh how much money I would lose that had not vested vs potential in new career.
Are they not just an incentive to keep staff. I will say that I’ve had 60+ jobs in my life and aside from my current one for a small company as an engineer, Apple was leaps and bounds above all the others in terms of support, benefits, and just a good work life balance. It was because I was surrounded by talented people and supported that I got my shit together and learned to program, which Apple also made many concessions to allow me the time.
Evenly weighted vesting schedule: Your grant vests the same amount every month for every year of the duration of the grant. For example, 1/48th of the grant vests over 4 years.
Back-weighted grant: Your grant vests less or not at all for the early period of the grant, and then a majority in the later part of the grant. For example: Year 1 10%, Year 2 20%, Year 3 30%, Year 4 40%.
Why it’s fucked up: The company is incentivized to abuse your labour early in your employment and then push you out before the majority of your compensation package kicks in.
Equity is already enough of a pair of golden handcuffs as it is, there’s no need to make them worse from this perspective.
This isn’t what we had at Apple. They would vest after two years. So after year two you would have stocks vesting every year and when you leave you would only be leaving the last two years on the table, which seems more reasonable than the Amazon example.
If I understand correctly, that’s what’s called a cliff - during the first period of your grant, you have no ongoing vesting, until a set date in the future where all of that period vests at once.
For example, first 12 months: 0%, then 12/48 at once, and finally 1/48 every month for the remainder of the grant.
I can only describe in this way to try and explain.
You start work 01/01/2025.
No stocks given.
1 year later 01/01/2026
You get given say 10 shares unvested which vest after two years.
1 year later 01/01/2027
Nothing beats but you get another 10 shares unvested which vest after two years.
1 year later 01/01/2028
The first set you were given have vested and you can sell them or keep them. The second set have not vested as they have one more year to go. You get a third set of shares which again vest in two years
What do you mean by back-weighted and how is it fucked up? Genuinely don’t know.
I worked for Apple on the Genius Bar in the Uk and we had the same schedule. I didn’t see it as a bad thing and when it was time to leave to become a software engineer I just had to weigh how much money I would lose that had not vested vs potential in new career.
Are they not just an incentive to keep staff. I will say that I’ve had 60+ jobs in my life and aside from my current one for a small company as an engineer, Apple was leaps and bounds above all the others in terms of support, benefits, and just a good work life balance. It was because I was surrounded by talented people and supported that I got my shit together and learned to program, which Apple also made many concessions to allow me the time.
Evenly weighted vesting schedule: Your grant vests the same amount every month for every year of the duration of the grant. For example, 1/48th of the grant vests over 4 years.
Back-weighted grant: Your grant vests less or not at all for the early period of the grant, and then a majority in the later part of the grant. For example: Year 1 10%, Year 2 20%, Year 3 30%, Year 4 40%.
Why it’s fucked up: The company is incentivized to abuse your labour early in your employment and then push you out before the majority of your compensation package kicks in.
Equity is already enough of a pair of golden handcuffs as it is, there’s no need to make them worse from this perspective.
Thanks I understand it now.
This isn’t what we had at Apple. They would vest after two years. So after year two you would have stocks vesting every year and when you leave you would only be leaving the last two years on the table, which seems more reasonable than the Amazon example.
If I understand correctly, that’s what’s called a cliff - during the first period of your grant, you have no ongoing vesting, until a set date in the future where all of that period vests at once.
For example, first 12 months: 0%, then 12/48 at once, and finally 1/48 every month for the remainder of the grant.
Correct me if I misunderstood.
Not quite.
I can only describe in this way to try and explain.
You start work 01/01/2025.
No stocks given.
1 year later 01/01/2026
You get given say 10 shares unvested which vest after two years.
1 year later 01/01/2027
Nothing beats but you get another 10 shares unvested which vest after two years.
1 year later 01/01/2028
The first set you were given have vested and you can sell them or keep them. The second set have not vested as they have one more year to go. You get a third set of shares which again vest in two years
Then the cycle repeats.
Hope I explained that well enough.
Aha! Sounds like a combination of a cliff (but not quite if the grant is just not given until 1 year) and continuous refreshers.