or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Talking stocks, trading, and investing in general
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Talking stocks, trading, and investing in general - Page 706

post #10576 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

If it's industry standard you're not going to have to force a new employer to do anything.

This and also depends on what level you're coming in at. Lower level employees usually are just told tough shit, here's your offer or we're just going to hire someone else. Higher level guys it's much easier to get the new company to payout your deferred comp.

A lot of my friends in the oil and gas business have deferred stock that vests over 3 years (1/3 each year) and get new grants every year so the deferred comp isn't just a tech thing.
post #10577 of 11202

I don't see how a bonus of 1x - ???x is atypical for Amazon vs. another company once you reach a certain level.  I guess how it is paid out can be different in the form of RSUs vs. cash.  I assume tech companies are different in that sense where comp is stock based for growth.

post #10578 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbarwick View Post
 

I don't see how a bonus of 1x - ???x is atypical for Amazon vs. another company once you reach a certain level.  I guess how it is paid out can be different in the form of RSUs vs. cash.  I assume tech companies are different in that sense where comp is stock based for growth.

 

At established companies for individual contributor level jobs, I just don't think it is that common.  As an example, most people I know get a salary x and a bonus of 3-15% every year.  Some of it may be stock, but it is typically cash.

 

At Amazon, an individual contributor can easily get salary x plus a bonus of nearly x in stock, but it doesn't vest for three years.

post #10579 of 11202
At my current company, I get Base + Bonus (as % of base) in cash and then an equity grant that vests over four years.
post #10580 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post



At Amazon, an individual contributor can easily get salary x plus a bonus of nearly x in stock, but it doesn't vest for three years.

Do you have to work an extra job to afford put options on the stock?
post #10581 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

At established companies for individual contributor level jobs, I just don't think it is that common. As an example, most people I know get a salary x and a bonus of 3-15% every year. Some of it may be stock, but it is typically cash.

At Amazon, an individual contributor can easily get salary x plus a bonus of nearly x in stock, but it doesn't vest for three years.

It's not common. It might exist once you get to certain executive type levels, but certainly not for the lower rungs. A bonus is different, since it's generally paid out at the end of a year or at some defined increment if you meet a certain set of predefined metrics.

Basically this is a way for Amazon to underpay it's employees. They may lipstick the pig but it's a form of deferred comp designed to keep you around (and keep underpaying you). It's another Walmart with arguably worse terms.
post #10582 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

it's a form of deferred comp designed to keep you around...

A form of deferred comp designed to retain? That's crazy talk!
post #10583 of 11202
While I do agree that amazon's comp structure tilts it in favor of the company, I doubt any employees are complaining given the stock's amazing performance, especially those who have been there long term. I bet that company mints millionaires faster and in greater numbers than any other similar tech company of its size.

I shudder at the thought of how much the top AWS engineers get in RSUs.
post #10584 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenFrog View Post

While I do agree that amazon's comp structure tilts it in favor of the company,

Today in obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenFrog View Post

I doubt any employees are complaining given the stock's amazing performance especially those who have been there long term

It's performance until it's not, which is why it's a high risk income scheme. Also, a lot of people complain about their treatment as employees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenFrog View Post

I bet that company mints millionaires faster and in greater numbers than any other similar tech company of its size.

I shudder at the thought of how much the top AWS engineers get in RSUs.

They underpay and grind thru engineers. Not sure many last until this fabled millionaire status. Also, the stock has had it's growth period. It's not far from MSFT and INTL status which is why I'm not a buyer.

I'd be surprised if there were as many millionaires as is fantasized about. Millionaires leave. They want you around.
post #10585 of 11202
Yeah, why would anyone want RSUs with a current FMV of about $840? Seriously, I'd punch the mofo that tried to give me that.
post #10586 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenFrog View Post

At my current company, I get Base + Bonus (as % of base) in cash and then an equity grant that vests over four years.

This is pretty common in oil and gas and finance. 

Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post


It's not common. It might exist once you get to certain executive type levels, but certainly not for the lower rungs. A bonus is different, since it's generally paid out at the end of a year or at some defined increment if you meet a certain set of predefined metrics.

Everyone except the lowest two rungs at my employer gets at least something similar to GF.

Quote:
Originally Posted by idfnl View Post

It's performance until it's not, which is why it's a high risk income scheme. Also, a lot of people complain about their treatment as employees.

I have seen companies where a decent percentage of comp is provided in the form of stock grants.

 

If the stock falls signifigantly retention bonuses are almost always paid.

post #10587 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenFrog View Post

While I do agree that amazon's comp structure tilts it in favor of the company, I doubt any employees are complaining given the stock's amazing performance, especially those who have been there long term.

If no employees are complaining because they're shitting gold, it's pretty hard to see how that's a comp structure that tilts in favor of the company. Win-win, maybe. By definition, a comp structure that tilts in favor of the company should yield a lot of disgruntled employees.


Now if part of the upside for employees is contingent, different people will value that risk-reward payoff differently. Presumably the people that choose to go there are more comfortable with the trade-offs involved. And if it's a shitty place to work, as with many other places whether it's worth putting up with that for what you're getting paid is an individualized decision.
But those are different questions than whether the compensation structure tilts in favor of the company (any more than the norm).
post #10588 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchapiro View Post

This is pretty common in oil and gas and finance. 
Everyone except the lowest two rungs at my employer gets at least something similar to GF.

Yeah, my bonuses (except for the lower rungs) have been between 25% and 50% of base. My understanding is that the higher up you go, the larger that % tends to be, although the percentage becomes much more variable. Basically there's a limit to how far you can go with guaranteed salary, but you receive a larger share of the firm's profits in good years.

No equity...but I'm not sure I'd want to own shares of our parent company anyways...I mean, I wouldn't turn down options that end up in the money, but I would never expect the stock to multiply like the shares of a young company.
post #10589 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

If no employees are complaining because they're shitting gold, it's pretty hard to see how that's a comp structure that tilts in favor of the company. Win-win, maybe. By definition, a comp structure that tilts in favor of the company should yield a lot of disgruntled employees.


Now if part of the upside for employees is contingent, different people will value that risk-reward payoff differently. Presumably the people that choose to go there are more comfortable with the trade-offs involved. And if it's a shitty place to work, as with many other places whether it's worth putting up with that for what you're getting paid is an individualized decision.
But those are different questions than whether the compensation structure tilts in favor of the company (any more than the norm).

I say that it's tilted in the favor of the company because the amount of guaranteed money that Amazon has to pay out in the form of base compensation is less than that of other tech companies.

It just so happens to be that their compensation plan has resulted in greater total compensation by virtue of the stock's lust worthy performance. If the stock was in the shitter, you'd see a lot more disgruntled employees. Highly situational. Either way, it's tilted in favor of the company, IMO.

Edit: I will add that I think this structure works out great for both the company and its employees. The employees are incentivized to work harder for long-term shareholder gains, which, in turn, theoretically creates a "better" company. I know this is all high-level, fluffy talk, but I think we can all agree that Amazon is a company that provides great value to its customers.
Edited by GreenFrog - 10/7/16 at 3:41pm
post #10590 of 11202
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchapiro View Post

This is pretty common in oil and gas and finance. 
Everyone except the lowest two rungs at my employer gets at least something similar to GF.

I agree, I've been offered different bonus structures over the years also. This is very different from what Amazon is doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchapiro View Post

I have seen companies where a decent percentage of comp is provided in the form of stock grants.

If the stock falls signifigantly retention bonuses are almost always paid.

Usually this comes with joining a startup where you are exposed to potential upside. A well established company like Amazon has no need to do this save to trim their overall payroll.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Business, Careers & Education
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Business, Careers & Education › Talking stocks, trading, and investing in general