undefined | Better HN

0 pointskevstev4y ago0 comments

You are confusing ideas, unless I am misunderstanding you.

Any ISO's pre-ipo will have some strike price, that is typically rooted in some valuation- the valuation per share is really just a function of the number of shares outstanding and this routinely gets adjusted right before the ipo, but the value of those ISOs or other grant types remains the exact same- its the same as reverse split where the share price doubles, or a 2 for 1 split where the share price halves but you have twice the number of shares- its financially equivalent.

You are really concerned with the valuation of the company when your grants were given, and what the valuation of the company is on the open market, and in the case of ISOs really just where the valuation of your options puts you above water. The IPO price in itself has nothing to do with either of those things, aside from a very brief moment in time after the opening auction where the company is worth the IPO price * shares outstanding.

The only way having an IPO go down on the first day actually hurts an employee is if they start that day or are granted stock or options at the IPO price, and I don't believe this has ever happened. Stock prices don't matter, total company value does.

0 comments

gen2204y ago

> The only way having an IPO go down on the first day actually hurts an employee is if they start that day or are granted stock or options at the IPO price.

This does routinely happen, because the 409A valuation for the quarter or more prior to an IPO is usually pretty close to the IPO valuation. Anybody who joins a company during that window of time will get ISO grants with unfavorable strike prices (prices close to the IPO price). These options could be worth nothing post-IPO if there’s a slump (in contrast to RSUs, which will always have value).

The difference between a company’s valuation and share price is important but irrelevant to this conversation as far as I can tell. Sorry that imprecise language on my part in my earlier comment created that distraction.

Edit: To be clear, the problem is not the bump or the slump (I tend to agree that it should be irrelevant, and if anything as a shareholder you may prefer a rational slump). Rather, it's the practice of granting ISOs at a soon-to-be market strike price that is the problem. The people with unfavorable ISO strike prices should be upset due to the strike price, not any slump or bump; but if there's a slump, they usually (incorrectly, IMO) blame the slump, and so the slump gets a bad rap internally. On the flip side, although I've never been in the position to make this decision, I find it unconscionable to offer ISOs as part of a compensation package within 6 months of an anticipated IPO date.