I'm about to be offered equity by my employer. What should I expect?
In my experience, any kind of equity you may be offered by the company is just a carrot. Your offer may be written in such a way that your potential ownership represents, say, 1% of the company today. But if the company goes for a round of financing your ownership percentage can get diluted. If this happens a couple of times and the terms of financing aren't very favorable then your percentage can go from that 1% down to 0.001%, making the equity worthless. I've known people who heard their company was being bought and thought they might get some kind of payoff. Come to find out the company hadn't done all that well and there wasn't anything to pay out after the main investors got some money back. (The main investors took a loss.) For obvious reasons, management wasn't keeping the staff up to date about the fact that they were operating in the red and their options were worthless. Some people grumbled about lawyers and filing lawsuits, but at the end of the day, there wasn't any money to be won. Keep this in mind. As to your question regarding what to look out for: Yes, what they said. You don't mention where you are on the totem pole. Are you reporting to the top dog, or are you 3 levels down? Not to be a downer, but until you know your cut, I'd not get too excited either way. 1000 shares/options of a LinkedIn turned to nearly $100K. Nothing to sneeze at, to be sure, but not enough to retire, nor bother contacting a lawyer.  The details of the equity should be spelled out clearly, nothing against Lawyers, but it's likely to be wasted money. "The main thing is the percentage of the company represented by the shares. Number of shares is meaningless without total shares. If you compute percentage and total company value you can estimate the value of the grant. Or perhaps more useful for a startup is to multiple the percentage by some plausible ""exit"" value, such as how much the company might sell for or IPO for. Many grants expire when or soon after you leave the company if you don't ""cash out"" vested shares when you leave, this is standard, but do remember it when you leave.  The other major thing is vesting. In the tech industry, vesting 1/4 after a year and then the rest quarterly over 3 more years is most common."
This is not right. Inferring the employee stock pool’s takeaway is not as easy as just taking a fraction of the purchase price. As an example, that wouldn’t account for any preferred returns of other ownership classes, among other things.   All considered though, it’s reasonable to assume that the employee stock pool will get some premium. Best of luck. "Many companies (particularly tech companies like Atlassian) grant their employees ""share options"" as part of their compensation. A share option is the right to buy a share in the company at a ""strike price"" specified when the option is granted. Typically these ""vest"" after 1-4 years so long as the employee stays with the company. Once they do vest, the employee can exercise them by paying the strike price - typically they'd do that if the shares are now more valuable. The amount they pay to exercise the option goes to the company and will show up in the $2.3 million quoted in the question." "Well, this sub is generally pretty darn good. Among us are investment bankers, private equity analysts, valuation analysts, portfolio managers, traders, brokers, bachelors, masters, and doctorate students, etc. We're helpful, though sometimes snarky, and have an exceedingly low tolerance for bullshit.  I love it here.  And while your logic is sound, we can actually explore private equity directly, as while private and public equity are related, they are different enough to study separately, in my opinion.  Private equity deals with private companies. By definition, these investments are illiquid (they cannot be easily sold like public stocks), and unmarketable (there is no ready market to trade these investments, like stock). They are generally held for longer time periods.  At its earliest stage, private equity is synonymous with ""initial investment"" or ""seed funding."" This includes (if we are maybe slightly liberal with our definition), the initial investment an entrepreneur makes into his business. At this stage, friends and family, angel investors and venture capital are present. At different points of a company lifecycle, different financiers become interested/applicable (mezzanine investors, etc.).  The investment made into a company allocates a certain percentage of the ownership of the company to the investor in exchange for cash (usually). This cash is used to cover expenses and take on capital projects. The goal of these investments is to directly make the company (and its value, and thus the investor's value) grow.   At some points in time, a new investor will show up and either invest directly in the company (same as before) or buy another investor's holding in the company (in which case, cash goes to *that specific investor* and *not* the company).   At every stage of investment leading up to IPO, the deals are negotiated between the parties. The results of a given negotiation determines the value of that company's equity. For example, if I pay you $100 for 50% of your company, the company's implied worth is $200. If two days later, Joe comes and offers to buy 33% of the company for $100, the Company is worth $300. (Special note: these percentages are assumed to be the allocation of equity **after** the deal. In this last case, the ownership of your company would be 33% you, 33% me, and 33% Joe. This illustrates something called *dilution,* which is very important to investors as it effects their eventual potential payoff later down the road, along with some other things).   At this point, do you have any questions?" Just for op's reference. A deferred wage entry would be something along the lines of the following scenario: you contract with a worker to perform some work at some point in the future, you would then book deferred wages for the amount to liabilities and deferred labor for that amount to assets, which would increase both and leave equity unchanged. "A little terminology: Grant: you get a ""gift"" with strings attached. ""Grant"" refers to the plan (legal contract) under which you get the stock options. Vesting: these are the strings attached to the grant. As long as you're employed by the company, your options will vest every quarter, proportionally. You'll become an owner of 4687 or 4688 options every quarter. Each such vest event means you'd be getting an opportunity to buy the corresponding amount of stocks at the strike price (and not the current market price which may be higher). Buying is called exercising. Exercising a nonqualified option is a taxable event, and you'll be taxed on the value of the ""gift"" you got. The value is determined by the difference between the strike price (the price at which you have the option to buy the stock) and the actual fair market value of the stock at the time of vest (based on valuations). Options that are vested are yours (depending on the grant contract, read it carefully, leaving the company may lead to forfeiture). Options that are not vested will disappear once you leave the company. Exercised options become stocks, and are yours. Qualified vs Nonqualifed - refers to the tax treatment. Nonqualified options don't have any special treatment, qualified do. 3.02M stocks issued refers to the value of the options. Consider the total valuation of the company being $302M. With $302M value and 3.02M stocks issued, each stock is worth ~$100. Now, in a year, a new investor comes in, and another 3.02M stocks are issued (if, for example, the new investor wants a 50% stake). In this case, there will be 6.04M stocks issued, for 302M value - each stock is worth $50 now. That is called dilution. Your grant is in nominal options, so in case of dilution, the value of your options will go down. Additional points: If the company is not yet public, selling the stocks may be difficult, and you may own pieces of paper that no-one else wants to buy. You will still pay taxes based on the valuations and you may end up paying for these pieces of paper out of your own pocket. In California, it is illegal to not pay salary to regular employees. Unless you're a senior executive of the company (which I doubt), you should be paid at least $9/hour per the CA minimum wages law." Some qualitative factors to consider when deciding whether to finance with equity vs debt (for a publicly traded company):    1) The case for equity: Is the stock trading high relative to what management believes is its intrinsic value? If so, raising equity may be attractive since management would be raising a lot of $$$, but the downside is you give up future earnings since you are diluting current ownership  2) The case for debt: What is the expected return for the project in which the raised capital will be utilized for? Is its expected return higher than the interest payments (in % terms)? If so raising debt would be more attractive than raising equity since current ownership would not be diluted  That's all I can think of off the top of my head right now, I'm sure there are a few more qualitative factors to consider but I think these two are the most intuitive I agree with the other comments that you should not buy/hold your company stock even if given at a discount. If equity is provided as part of the compensation package (Options/Restrictive Stock Units RSU)then this rule does not apply. As a matter of diversification, you should not have majority equity stake of other companies in the same sector (e.g. technology) as your employer. Asset allocation and diversification if done in the right way, takes care of the returns. Buying and selling on the same day is generally not allowed for ESPP. Taxation headaches. This is from personal experience (Cisco Systems). I had options issued in Sept 2008 at 18$ which vested regularly. I exited at various points - 19$,20$,21$,23$ My friend held on to all of it hoping for 30$ is stuck. Options expire if you leave your employment. ESPP shares though remain. The partnership agrees to pay each of you salaries and/or bonuses, typically based on the net profit brought in. You do have a legal document setting out the rules for this partnership, right? If so, the exact answer should be in there. If you don't or it isn't, you need a lawyer yesterday. Well I just had my interview about 2 weeks ago and some of these questions DID come up.  So these are a start, but also you should just pay attention carefully to your finance course literature.  Things like price/yield relations of bonds. How does maturity affect their price sensitivity? What does dividend issuance do to the value of an equity's stock?  As to your next summer internship... I find it a little weird that you'd be involved in VC.  No offense, but those people usually have many years of background in an industry before they start giving seed money to prospective companies.  Maybe some specifics on what you'd actually be doing for a VC firm could help me help you. "I write software myself and was involved in a couple of start ups.  One failed, another was wildly successful, but I did not receive much in compensation. The former I received stock, but since it failed, it was worthless anyway.  There should be compensation for your time in addition to equity in a company.   Any agreement needs be in writing.  In the later situation I was told to expect about a 17%/year bonus, but nothing could be guaranteed.  Translation:  ""It will never happen.""  It didn't, but I meet my lovely wife there so I have that for a bonus. Agreements need to address the bad things can happen.  What happens if one of you is no longer interested in continuing?  What happens if one of you die, or addicted to something?  What happens if one of you gets thrown in jail or disabled?  Right now you are full of optimism and hope, but bad things happen.  Cover those things while you still like each other. It might be enough to have a good salary, and some stock options.  You man not be interested in running the day to day business. Most of all good luck, I wish you all the best!" "Absolutely terrible idea(s) on many fronts. Firstly, why are you giving away equity at all? usually it's to attract people you otherwise wouldn't be able to hire (like extremely talented coders or business development managers) but normal employees? Bad idea. If you really want to give up equity, then make sure it's only realized (valued) once certain targets are met (i.e. sales/revenue/share price/investment etc). As for the nomenclature, they're not ""Co-Founders"" - that's typically reserved for the people that foundned the company, not just people who happened to be working for the company it started trading. Call them ""founding employee"" if you must, but they're certainly not founders. Why does this matter? If the company ever takes iff or you get investment, or you fire one of them or one just gets the idea to sue you, their position name suddenly REALLY matters, and by not being careful, they could win a substantial cut of your company in a lawsuit. there's even stories of employees ganging up on their bosses and they end up owning the company. I know someone that's been involved in high 8 figure suit for 7 years for exactly the same reason. So unless they're putting in startup capital or they're taking a serious hit on their salary in return for compensation in the form of equity, don't give anyone equity." "As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them.  They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%.  However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years.  Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan.  Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested.  If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind.  So the new employer might offer to ""buy out"" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now.  You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed.  So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank.  Each December you receive a performance bonus.  Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M.  It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus.  You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer.  A competing employer may offer to ""buy you out"" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there).  You might negotiate with them and say ""I'm on track for $2M this year"", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer.  By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer.  Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation." "Recently, I asked about what the company valuation is and how many   shares does my 4% represent.CFO told me that there is no point to talk   about ""shares"" or ""stock"" since the company is not public. Is it   right? No, it is wrong. Shares and stocks exist regardless of how they can be traded. Once a company is formed, there are stocks that belong to the owners in the proportion of the ownership. They may not exist physically, but they do exist on paper. As an owner of 5% of the company, you own 5% of the company stocks. I asked if my investor portion equity will be subjected under a   vesting schedule, CFO said yes. That doesn't make sense to me, because   I bought those 4%? Aren't those supposed to be fully vested? I agree   to my employee equity to be vested. Doesn't make sense to me either, since your money is already in their pocket. But I'm not sure if its illegal. If that's what is written in the signed contract - then may be its possible to have that situation. But it doesn't make much sense, because these shares are granted to you in return to your money, not some potential future work (as the 1% employee's portion). You already gave the money, so why wouldn't they be vested? Best to read the contract upon which you gave them your money, I really hope you have at least that and not just gave them a check...." Not sure why you are getting downvotes. Managing to the next quarters numbers at the expense of the future is rampant in big companies these days. I work at a big bank and it’s really becoming a large problem. Individual contributors can only do so much to hide the fact that management is sacrificing the future for their quarterly bonus. In any one quarter it’s no big deal but when it’s done for years as is likely the case with GE it does cause huge problems. ZeroHedge is valuable because it provides an alternative perspective. I rarely, if ever, agree with their conclusions or make investments motivated by them; but they are sometimes insightful and bring up datapoints of interest.  Most financial journalism is written by non-finance people; that's why it's so shitty and useless.