| Ok so I'm speaking from personal experience and network. The point is that 3-4 years tenure is enough for significant appreciation in equity, especially in the earlier grants. Let's work an example, for someone who started 3 years ago. - May 2019. - Base: $225K. Equity: $880K grant = 785sh @ 1120/share = 220K. Bonus: $60K. Total: $500K. - May 2020. - Base: $236K. Equity: 196sh @ 1428/share = 280K. Equity: $220K grant = 154sh @ 1428/share = 55K. Bonus: $63K. Total: $634K. - May 2021. - Base: $247K. Equity: 196sh @ 2411/share = 473K. Equity: 39sh @ 2411/share = 94K. Equity: $220K grant = 91sh @ 2411/share = 55K. Bonus: $66K. Total: $935K. Trust me, if they've been there for 3-4 years, they're making more than 1M in total comp. If you back my example out to someone who started in 2018, those refreshers easily push them into 1.2-1.4M, and factor in promo grants? |
And Google wasn't giving $880k sign-on equity grants for L6 in 2019. You can't use todays numbers for past cases. And then you are choosing a peak pay before it drops dramatically after the sign-on grant ends. And after all that, you aren't even at 1M, let alone "easily 1-2M". With literally everything being used to pump numbers up, you don't get to where you cite.
So yes, there are people at loads of companies who make way more money than advertised because the stock ballooned. But this is a completely useless way of analyzing compensation.