An interesting campaign launched this week. The key argument is that 90 day post-termination exercise requirements - typical for stock options granted by startups - are not fair to rank-and-file employees. The case is well made by blank, and what appeared to be a series of related posts on Medium, all launched apparently at the same time: Those of you familiar with tax law requirements for ISOs ( incentive stock options) Will be quick to say, "well, that tight exercise window is required by the law; it's part of the trade off for the employee getting the favored tax treatment of ISOs." But blank is clearly arguing that the tax benefits outweighed by the impracticalities of the 90 day exercise window. And are those tax benefits as significant as many assume? Here's part of his discussion of the tax benefit lost, when you extend the post termination exercise window, and then necessarily fall outside the iso requirements My friend, the start…
↧