I've heard Apple's equity grants are stupid though. Instead of the standard grant-value / share-price-at-hire = number of shares, and then then vesting the number of shares over 4 years, Apple vests the grant-value over 4 years and then converts to stock using the share price at the time of vesting. This of course results in lower compensation over the vesting schedule assuming an appreciating stock price.
They don't convert like you say, what they do it cut refreshes.
Example:
You get $100K and $50K of stock (grant value): "target compensation" = $150K
Next year, when stock vests, your target compensation is $160K, so you get $110K cash plus a stock refresh grant:
* Stock went down to $0 -> $100K refresh to make up.
* Stock stayed flat: -> $50K refresh
* Stock went up to $100K: -> 0K refresh to cancel out.
* Stock went up to $150K: -> 0K refresh to cancel out, but you still come out ahead.
So, you get upside if the stock shoots up enough, and you are protected from downside, but you lose upside if stock grows insufficiently.
It works well if you like guaranteed income, but you have to ignore a lot of the "expect" upside potential. And it makes you wonder why they bother giving so much equity, doesn't it? 1. They don't give a lot of equity. 2. It's a shell game and most new hires don't value the offer accurately.
So you're saying your initial grant remains untouched? So assuming $50k per year in stock for 4 years, after 4 years you'd get $200k plus the delta on 4 years of stock growth?
FWIW, during my time at Apple, equity grants worked in the usual way of converting completely to a share count on the grant date. I never saw the grant-value vesting that you describe.
That seems useless to me. I thought the whole idea of stock grants is to motivate employees by rewarding them when the company does well and the stock goes up.
