> After they leave the company or retire, the complete balance of their accounts will be paid out to them over a six-year period.
Hmmm, so that line is a little misleading since they don't really "own" the stock in a conventional sense. They can't sell it to anybody else and they can't hold on to it indefinitely.
To the extent they "own" it they are are forced to only ever "sell" it back to the same company at some market-defined rate. (Arguably a form of stock-buybacks by the company.)
However that does sidestep the other tricky problems of taking money from retired employees (via diluting their stock) to award an ever-growing pool of shares to current employees every month.
It's tricky. It wouldn't be employee owned if you could sell your shares to the public or keep them indefinitely after you leave. That's why you have to sell them back to the company/employees. Doing that over a period of time makes you value longer term company performance vs short term.
What do you get out of "owning" shares that you can't sell and that have no market price? Why would someone want this instead of just being paid cash for services rendered by someone else who's bearing all the risk?
time preference slash discounting. so not sure what you mean by "have no market price" bezos is worth XX billion, but not if he tries to sell it all at once
Hmmm, so that line is a little misleading since they don't really "own" the stock in a conventional sense. They can't sell it to anybody else and they can't hold on to it indefinitely.
To the extent they "own" it they are are forced to only ever "sell" it back to the same company at some market-defined rate. (Arguably a form of stock-buybacks by the company.)
However that does sidestep the other tricky problems of taking money from retired employees (via diluting their stock) to award an ever-growing pool of shares to current employees every month.