| The strike prices of options are set based on a 409A valuation. These are "cashless" loans, which are recourse for tax purposes (so that the IRS respects this as a true purchase of shares, in order to start people's LTCG and QSBS clocks). The terms were likely very favorable, i.e. set with an interest rate equivalent to the AFR. This is not a situation in which the company is trying to make money as a lender. This is no riskier than deciding whether or not to exercise your options, which typically employees have to decide within 3 months of leaving a startup. The risk is not in the terms of the loan, but in whether the employee wants to exercise and lay out the cash (or the promise to pay the cash); in each case, it's an investment decision to decide whether it's worth it given that the stock is risky and could eventually be worth zero. Note that all these issues are driven by tax rules, and generally not the startups. Startups are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Every type of equity has pros/cons. If it's an immaterial amount of money, the employee should be a big boy and just decide whether or not to risk the cash. If it's a material amount of money, the employee should really be speaking to their own advisors, which if they have a material amount of equity, they should be able to afford to do. |
Unless there was an agreement to forgive the loans if the options go underwater, which I haven’t seen reported here.