[sinofsky]

You could apply this same model to IBM very easily if you started from college any time from 1993 (April to be precise) and 2013. If you just worked your way up the promotion ladder you would have done super well financially (better than the SP500 by 4-5x).

The problem with any comparison is hindsight. Many other large cap tech stocks do not behave that way. Certainly you could have joined Microsoft at a certain time and "given up" at the "wrong time". Your cash comp might have been quite good (or not).

The thing to ask yourself (and I definitely am not judging or implying one way or another) is where does your code go and what does it do? A lot of that IBM code, well... And of course many startups don't make it as well.

If all you want is money with low risk the choice is clear. If all you want is a chance at a huge payoff with high risk then the choice is clear.

If you're happy with the end result of your code then in a Fountainhead sort of way that's what matters. Then whichever risk path you take for your compensation is secondary. And your views on this might change at different life stages.

Finally the ability and skills to navigate and succeed in either a startup or a big company are different. Depending on when you choose and how you grow and evolve you may or may not be at the right place at the right time.

That's my shortest comment to a very long topic :)

[mailshanx]

>> If all you want is money with low risk the choice is clear.

It's not quite clear to me: care to explain?

[sinofsky]

Assume starting salary and velocity and ability to perform are all equal. Then that's one interpretation of the original article.