LTI (long-term incentives: RSUs, options, deferred cash bonuses) is marketed as a "retention tool" that also "aligns interests." Both claims are partly true, but the economics are often asymmetric in ways that surprise both the rep and the company. A rep hears "$200K LTI" and imagines $200K; a company spends less than that in real expected cost; and the rep's actual realized value depends on vesting, forfeiture, stock price, and tax treatment in ways neither side models cleanly at offer time.
This tool runs the math both ways. Given an LTI grant value, vesting schedule, forfeiture risk, and assumed stock performance, it computes the rep\'s probability-weighted expected realized value and the company\'s probability-weighted expected cost — then compares both to an equivalent cash scenario.
The four variables that determine real LTI value
1. Vesting schedule
A 4-year cliff vest and a 4-year monthly vest have very different risk profiles. Cliff vesting concentrates forfeiture risk — one rep departure at year 3.99 means zero realized value. Monthly vesting smooths that risk but extends the retention tail. Most tech companies use 1-year cliff + monthly thereafter; industrials more often use 3-year cliff.
2. Forfeiture risk (attrition during vesting)
Annual voluntary attrition × vesting period = compound forfeiture rate. At 15% annual attrition and a 4-year cliff, expected forfeiture is ~48% — the rep has roughly a coin-flip chance of seeing the grant. Reps underestimate this dramatically; companies benefit from the asymmetry but rarely acknowledge it in the offer conversation.
3. Stock performance (growth or decline)
Public company RSUs at a stable stock price realize roughly grant value. Growth-stage companies can multiply (2–5× realized) or zero (bankruptcy / down round). For private-company equity, the realized value depends heavily on liquidity event timing and terms — without a liquidity event, realized value is zero regardless of paper valuation.
4. Tax differential
Cash bonuses are taxed at ordinary income + FICA immediately. RSU/stock comp is taxed at ordinary income at vest on the FMV at vest, then capital gains on appreciation after vest. Options (NSO/ISO) have their own treatment. The tax differential varies significantly by individual tax bracket, jurisdiction, and award type — this tool uses a simplified estimate. Consult a tax advisor for individual situations. For private-company early-stage equity, it can be huge if 83(b) elections and long-term capital gains kick in.
Companies book LTI cost at grant value on the income statement. But the rep experiences probability-weighted realized value. These numbers are often 30–50% apart in reality, which is why reps who run the math feel shortchanged and companies who haven't run it are surprised when reps treat LTI as "fake money." Running both sides of the calc before offers go out avoids this mismatch.
LTI vs Cash Comparison
Enter grant value + vesting + assumptions. We compute probability-weighted realized value.
ℹ️ How this tool works +
The question it answers: Given my company\'s attrition rate, stock-performance assumption, and tax treatment, what is the probability-weighted real value of an LTI grant vs an equivalent cash payment — both to the rep and to the company?
What to enter:
- LTI grant value ($) — nominal value of the grant at issue.
- Vesting period (years) — total time to full vest.
- Vesting structure — cliff / graded (monthly after 1-year cliff).
- Annual voluntary attrition (%) — rate for this rep population. Typical: 10–20%.
- Expected stock CAGR (%) — growth assumption over the vesting period. Stable public: 5–10%. Growth public: 15–30%. Private: highly uncertain.
- Effective tax rate differential (%) — difference between LTI and cash effective tax rates for this rep. Default: −2% (LTI slightly more favorable on average).
The math:
- Expected realized value (to rep) = grant × (1 − forfeiture rate) × stock-growth factor × (1 − effective tax).
- Expected cost (to company) = grant × (1 − forfeiture rate) × stock-growth factor + payroll tax — simplified.
Simplified model — real LTI valuation has additional factors (dividend treatment, option time value, vesting acceleration clauses). Directional only.
Benchmarks, ranges, and default values in this tool reflect Falcon's practitioner experience across consulting engagements. They are directional starting points, not substitutes for market survey data. For binding compensation decisions, validate key figures against Radford, Mercer, Carta, or WorldatWork survey data for your specific geography, industry, and company stage.
How to interpret the comparison
LTI expected value ≥ cash
LTI is economically better for the rep under your assumptions. Typically means either low attrition (good vesting hit rate) or high expected stock growth. Communicate the assumptions so reps understand why — otherwise they'll discount LTI by instinct and perceive the offer as worse than it is.
LTI expected value 80–100% of cash
Slightly lower but in the ballpark. Retention value of LTI (the golden-handcuffs effect) may offset the gap. Balanced trade-off; if rep preference tilts strongly one way, accommodate.
LTI expected value 60–80% of cash
Materially lower for the rep. Usually traces to high attrition or flat stock assumption. LTI is "cheaper" to offer than cash but the rep perception will catch up — expect friction at offer stage or in year-one retention conversations.
LTI expected value <60% of cash
LTI is economically worse for the rep by a wide margin. Likely high attrition (>20%) or declining stock. Using LTI here is optically giving more than you are; reps will figure this out and trust erodes. Reconsider grant size or switch to cash-heavy structure.
Annual attrition of 20% compounds to ~59% over a 4-year cliff. The rep has a ~41% chance of seeing any of the grant. If they perceive the LTI at $200K but expected realized value is $82K after forfeiture, and then stock growth and tax adjust further, the gap vs an equivalent cash offer becomes stark. Run this calc before offering LTI-heavy packages in high-attrition populations.
Designing LTI programs for sales roles?
We help SalesOps and HR teams evaluate LTI structures for sales roles — where quota-driven tenure dynamics differ materially from engineering. Book a 20-minute review.
Book a 20-minute consultation →FAQ
Simplified — the model treats LTI as RSU-like (value = share count × stock price at vest). Stock options have additional time-value dynamics and strike-price considerations. For options, use the intrinsic value at expected stock price as the grant value input; actual Black-Scholes valuation requires a dedicated option-pricing tool.
Enter the current paper valuation as grant value and use a conservative CAGR (0–5% expected, treating liquidity risk separately). Private equity realizes only on liquidity event — down rounds, flat rounds, or extended private status all reduce realized value. Communicate this explicitly.
Not modeled here. Acceleration on change-of-control (double-trigger) is industry-standard for senior roles; single-trigger is rarer. Both raise expected realized value (less forfeiture risk) — treat as a non-quantified positive factor when present.
Yes, and increasingly common for senior AE+ roles at enterprise SaaS. Combines with OTE for total comp benchmarking. Note: sales tenure is typically shorter than engineering tenure, so forfeiture rates are higher — the tool's output tends to favor cash for sales populations vs engineering.