Stripe RSU math vs traditional 4-yr grants
I modeled a Stripe L3 comparing it with a FANG E5/L5 offer. The numbers are representative of typical offers being given out these days. I see a lot of skepticism around Stripe's equity structure saying that the employees lose out on the upside. However, the model seems to indicate that the higher recurring stock value makes up for the lack of 4-yr grants.
A few key points:
1. I have assumed the same base-pay, sign-on and target annual bonus (15%).
2. I believe Stripe has more growth left in spite of being a 100B company already. Hence, I have modeled two scenarios - one with 10% average annual growth and another with 20%.
3. Stripe performance equity target is 0-270k for L3s. I was told by the recruiter that between 1/3 and 2/3 of the employees will get some form of performance equity. These vest over 2 years. I have assumed a 100k refresher when you get one and 0 when you get none.
4. There is no 4-yr cliff with Stripe's model. This is arguably better for people in the long run.
Does this change your opinion about Stripe's equity structure? If you think I've missed anything in here, happy to correct that and re-run the model.
#stripe #valuegrant #avg #l3 #e5 #l5 #model
comments
Yes , People are going to leave but this is not a net 0 loss decision.
If the 225k recurring/refreshers were converted to initial equity then obviously that would win.
IMO people join startups/pre-ipos for their upside and not because of comp being similar to FANG.
I think Stripe's model as you have shown has potentially more upside, but how easy is it to hit in your example 100k performance equity?