Is it easy to negotiate a change or add an acceleration clause in the options grant? Seems like those docs are set in stone and very hard to change without board approvals etc.
Then you go somewhere else. Nobody forces you to take a job with extra risks and a contractual situation that allows others to pull the rug out from under you when the pay-off materializes.
Really, the only potentially bad contracts are the ones that you've signed. So as long as you haven't signed you have negotiation room and if your choice is between being paid 'market rates' versus being paid 'half of market rate + options' and those options are subject to change without notice then you're just setting yourself up for being hurt if you chose the second.
Nothing is set in stone, that's more a matter of self-confidence and knowing when to walk away.
The grant itself requires board approval, so that isn't a huge roadblock. The bigger issue is how much leverage you have. If you're experienced and they need you, getting double-trigger acceleration shouldn't be an issue, and it can't hurt to at least ask for single-trigger...
All the reports have clearly stated 'international air corridor'. Pretty ignorant to be commenting on the issue without actually reading the article. I'm sure some common sense would have avoided that.
This particular article says nothing about an "international air corridor". You owe him an apology for accusing him of not reading the article when you clearly did not read it yourself.
Thanks, tzs. So what if it's an international treaty, would you expect terrorists (possibly, wanting to boast of their hardware superiority) to honor it? There's always a risk in everything, but there are some known risks that we should never take. Qantas, Korean and US airliners were already avoiding Ukraine airspace altogether even without an ICAO ban. Sorry if the post hurt your feelings, no malice intended.
I thought this was a good point until I realized the traffic Amazon has to it's home page and how many of it's devices are Top 5 sellers in major categories. Still, you could be right that they wanted even more than just Amazon alone could do for the phone.
As a first time phone maker it was probably easiest to work closely with one carrier so that the design team could work closely with a single certification team. I know lots of companies make phones now, but it is still a big engineering problem.
I feel bad for all the developers who are going to see a substantial drop in revenues from incentivized video ads. But as a user, I am happy to see this change. Developers have been very abusive with in-game credits.
Good news is if this deal doesn't go through, T-Mobile gains to make over a billion dollars to make its network better/faster. * AT&T paid about 4 billion in cash and spectrum when the last merger fell apart..
Can only explain the business reasoning surrounding breakup fees? Why does one company stand to lose more or less than another one if things don't go through? Why is the merger worth more to one than the other?
It is distracting to the target and will require them to do lots more work. For example they will need to provide the materials necessary for due diligence. The fee ensures the acquirer is serious, and that the target is adequately compensated if it doesn't go through.
The acquirer also makes it harder for others to bid because they too need to take into account the fee.
