[kethinov]

> Those who are rich can afford to take more risk, and they are taking more risk by putting more in.

No, that's not how ESPP works. There is zero risk that they'll make less money than someone who takes it all as salary instead. It's a guaranteed significant increase in income.

> Unlimited stock contribution being a bonus for already rich employees: Really? Really?! I say this as someone who came in with a negative net worth and no cash flow.

Yes, really. Wealthier Netflix employees are paid more than you because they can afford to defer 100% of their comp for six months.

[diab0lic]

Right, I apologize, I had assumed you're familiar with the Netflix option program and just inappropriately using the term ESPP. We have a rather straightforward option program in which you purchase an immediately vesting option for 40% of the current market price, strike price is equal to the current market price. If the stock doesn't increase 40% (used to be 20%) then you don't just break even, that money is gone. There is risk.

I wasn't asking really in terms of wether or not it was true, I'm asking really as in you somehow think this is some negative point against the company. I'm just not sure I understand how providing an opportunity to employees is a negative?

The wealthier Netflix employees who accept more risk than me are paid more than me, because they're in a position to accept more risk.

[nicholas73]

This sounds terrible. I can't find option data since they just had a split, but 40% sounds incredibly high even if the options don't expire. Furthermore the growth phase for NFLX likely has peaked, so what is the point in buying illiquid options? Can employees even sell these options?

Furthermore at-the-market strike prices give you the least amount of leverage. What is the point of accepting the risk of complete loss and illiquidity when you can put up just 2.5x more and buy the damn shares outright?

[kethinov]

Interesting, thanks for the additional detail. I am not a critic of a system like that.

However, that doesn't explicitly refute my point. Am I wrong in assuming that there are no limits on ESPP contribution?

If that is indeed the case, then my argument stands.

[diab0lic]

I don't believe there are any limits on the option program contribution. I'm not trying to refute your point, I imagine we just both have a philosophical difference in view on wether or not this is good.

[kethinov]

I'm not talking about options, which as you pointed out do indeed carry risk, I'm talking about ESPP. They're different programs.

[svachalek]

I don't think there is an ESPP at Netflix.

[CrankyFool]

Take this as authoritative: There's no ESPP at Netflix. I've been here long enough to remember when there was one :)