[dasil003]

No, I understood the example perfectly, it's you who doesn't seem to understand the downside risk. You would need a $480k loan to buy the four years of stock because you are buying it before you've done the work to earn the $480k. A loan is something you have to pay back, so if the stock tanks you have to make up the difference. In order to be equivalent, the terms of the loan would have to be pegged to the stock price on the downside (so if stock price was cut in half you would only owe $240k), but not on the upside (so you get all the gains). No one in the world will give you a loan with these kinds of terms.

[hansvm]

That's only relevant if you're leaving Google before the 4yr period is over and also if you don't know roughly what subset you'll stay for (where you'd just take a smaller loan to represent the first N years of vesting).

Also, the cost of options to completely mitigate the incremental risk beyond that of an ordinary Googler is small (cumulatively a little less than the cumulative cost of interest for the loan). It's a small point that matters if you go out to actually implement the idea, but in the context of comparing Google (X total cash equivalents in their normal structure) to some other company (X salary), the investment opportunities in GOOG are sufficiently comparable that it might be reasonable to upweight Google's TC to 1.1X or so (or downweight it because you're restricted to GOOG itself and don't have more options), but I still think it's unreasonable to call it anything like 3.5X. Those aren't million dollar contracts; they're $X contracts paired with a forced investment that anyone else could choose to make without a huge downside (ignoring the much rarer actual $X contracts).