> The back-loaded vesting schedule is such blatantly cynical bullshit.

I don't understand this. A friend was recently offered an insane pay package from Amazon (compared to another big-tech). The way I saw it, the Amazon pay package was more attractive than the alternative because of the back-loaded vesting schedule.

Basically they pay you out in cash for the first two years, then after that you have an option to keep working there. If the stock price goes down in the first two years, you got your guaranteed cash -- no risk (and it would be a good time to interview again). If the stock price goes up, you now have basically an option on extra exposure in the form of staying longer with highly valued RSUs, and now getting some high proportion of your pay in RSUs.

It just seems straight up better? If you want the stock instead of fungible cash, just buy it on the open market?

It's bullshit because it assumes 15% IRR. So if they tell you you're getting $100K in outyear 3, it's not actually $100K, it's $65K of present value equities. If it fails to reach the target value, well, "Ownership" is an LP. You might get some more stock that vests in another year to make up for it, but that assumes you survive the PIP factory for another 12 months.

Oh, and if the stock actually goes up more than 15%, then regardless of your performance you won't get a raise because you've already exceeded band penetration.