Wait there are no refresh equity grants at Amazon? I'm at Google and making over double what I was when I started, almost all from additional equity grants every year. It worked out to more like 1.3x, 1.5x, 1.8x, 2.4x, ...

I made it about 4.5 years at Amazon. The equity refresh grants were very small compared to my initial grant. I left for similar work where my cash comp at the new place was equal to my best case projections of cash + equity if had I stayed at Amazon. The new place also has some pre-ipo options on top that may or may not be worth anything.

If you go up in job levels or into management, the equity grants might be higher, but in my case I stayed at the same level the entire time. I did change job families, which in hindsight I realize that I traded job level/promotion opportunity for experience and technical depth. No regrets. I would have liked to stay but my chosen career path was not valued. The 4-year vesting cliff is a term used a lot. I feel that is by design to manage people up or out.

Turnover is valued at Amazon, it makes sure processes are not people dependent. In addition to managed attrition, they encourage internal transfers to the point where they recently removed the 1 year minimum at a job before transferring.

I only stayed at Amazon for one year, but I was told that if I'd stayed for two years they would have offered me more equity.

So yes, there are refresh equity grants. I've heard from a good source that they do that at Apple as well.

There are refresh equity grants unless you are on a PIP. Now you know what all the fucking PIPs are all about at Amazon (other than blocking your transfer).

You should not listen to what anyone at Amazon tells you.

Did you notice the part where I worked at Amazon in-house for a year? I was a consultant for them for six month before that as well.

And my experience was pretty awesome. I did hear about PIP issues, though. That does suck. I'd probably just quit if it happened to me. I have a low tolerance for crap at work.

I like the "get severance pay" strategy someone mentioned. I was only working there at all because the money and people were great.

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.

Yes, you get additional stock grants every year.