|
|
|
|
|
by felipe
4620 days ago
|
|
I also get RSUs as part of my compensation package (as any other tech company offers, by the way). The difference is that I am not getting a pay-cut for receiving RSUs. In other words, I am not making less for having the "opportunity" to maybe hit the lucky jar in the future. > And sure, share price can go down but if you don't believe a company is going to continue building wealth, why work there? My point is simply that IMO FB employees are not being fairly compensated for the amount of risk they are taking. If my future employer is asking me to accept a salary pay-cut in exchange of RSUs, my upside needs to be more than that. If we are talking about a revolutionary company, then sure, I'd agree with you, but Facebook? |
|
My take on this is pretty simple: There are very few labor markets I've heard of that are as liquid as software engineering talent in the bay area. If Facebook was paying below market rate salaries and trying to use their equity grants as justification, I think they would face a lot of difficulty recruiting top talent. Because the companies Facebook competes with ALSO have the equity card to play. And in fact, until recently, you could argue FB equity was not nearly as attractive as some of FB's major competitors. Specifically, they were underperforming publicly traded competitors like google, apple, linked in, and netflix, and they are at a disadvantage compared to non publicly traded companies simply because the potential upside is more limited. As an engineer you'd probably make more money in equity joining Twitter today than FB. Facebook's stock has plenty of room to grow, but to what? Possibly it will double in the next year, and triple in the next 5 years. Possibly. Compare that to the under-$20 strike price you'd get joining Twitter today and it's not as attractive.
All that said, I bought a few hundred shares of FB in the mid $20's and still see it as a good investment.