Righto, and asking a lot of demands/questions means the company is not going to like you as much and will influence your relationship after the offer is accepted. The info you get will be standard and there is certain info they are not going to want to share.

Basically a casual ask for "can you share how many options are outstanding?" is about as good as you are going to get. Totally good. Non-stand demands? Not so good.

If the VC has preferential shares (they do) just realize that's ok - and probably fair. Don't join the company if you don't think it can exit above it's funding amounts if you are in for the stock - but hopefully you're in it because you really will love the position and the stock is just a bonus if it makes it.

That's the most important thing :) You don't want to be in a job you don't like just because it's profitable IMHO.

There is absolutely no reason not to disclose the number of outstanding shares. Failure to do so means the denominator in the equation can be anything. One or one billion. At that point you have to value the entire option nonsense at $0 total, or even negative given the tax implications. It takes all the truth out of the statement "our cash compensation is below market because of our generous option grants." If I can't figure out the monetary value of the options at the given strike price, I have no way of knowing if they're generous or not.

Reasons exist.... One reason is likely that they want to keep the valuation confidential outside of the company (people talk), because as a private company that information doesn't have to be public. It's not a great reason for the employees - but it's there, nonetheless.

It's tricky to share that with employees and not have it get out.

That being said, if it were all public, I think that would be fine, I'm not sure what results that would cause if every company did that, and it might be cool if every company were required to by law (hint, hint, congress!).

"Reasons exist"

And absolutely none of them are valid. If you're going to have this person work on the core of your company, there is absolutely no reason to not be up front with them.

It's quite valid and exists as a reason, you just don't agree with it :)

No, it's not valid. The only reason it would be done is for deceitful reasons. Therefore, not valid.

Keeping it private here means private from external companies that should not have access to that data, not employees. This includes competitors, M&A targets, and investors who have not yet invested and should not have access to the books.

I do however strongly believe in tempering expectations, it's wrong to try to retain people by thinking they have more than they do.

> will influence your relationship after the offer is accepted.

It will influence your relationship, positively.

Executives and managers always pay attention to these details and negotiate them when joining a company. The fact that you're paying attention signals that you actually understand what's going on and demands respect.

Some companies will refuse to give you this info and resent you for asking, but you should automatically reject such offers.

Err, no. Not always.

If a "rank and file" developer goes back and forth grilling them over offer terms, and is exceptionally picky above his peer group, this DOES make it back upstream in negative ways.

Some companies will not give you this as a matter of policy - , if you are ok with the salary, you could still enjoy working there - and may also make a great deal of money (or you might not).

> Some companies will not give you this as a matter of policy

Then don't work for those companies.

Ones goal in life should not be to get exploited at shitty startups as a "rank and file" developer (aka chump).

Some parts of companies can be corporate and still have some other very good parts.

All being said, if at that stage of a job offer, you don't want to be looking like the most important thing to you are your options. If you get a decent salary and like the work, you are not being exploited.

If everyone asks for such things, then boards will get the message and make this standard to compete.

Or you know, the board might not be a dick. Some of us founders are less outright hostile to employees and we are definitely on the board (usually with majority when the first 20-50 employees are coming on).

+1

The approach you imply is the approach I've taken. Work with founders that I trust, verify the details of the deal to the best of my ability and assume that good people do the right thing for other good people.

Right. A CTO could negotiate these terms. Everyone else should value their options properly at 0