Fundraising Operations
Prepare an Equity Grant Request Without Losing the Context
Prepare one equity grant proposal that gives reviewers the role context, quantity basis, source documents and decision needed.
What you will learn
- Prepare one reviewer-ready equity grant request.
- Make quantity, instrument and date assumptions explicit.
- Route unknowns without presenting a proposal as an approved award.
A useful equity grant request is a concise proposal with enough context for the right reviewer to act. It explains the role, proposed terms, quantity basis, supporting records and exact decision needed. It is not the grant itself.
Tell the reviewer what decision you need
“Please approve equity for our new hire” leaves too much work hidden. Ask for review of a defined proposal, identify the authorization process and list unresolved questions. Separate the business reason from the administrative facts; both matter, but they come from different sources.
The IRS’s equity-compensation audit guide identifies records such as plans, agreements and corporate records as useful evidence. It is a nonbinding audit guide, not a checklist that makes a proposed award valid.
Complete the brief before sending it
This fictional example is deliberately a proposal. The count is invented, not a recommended grant size or a market benchmark.
Original reviewer-ready grant request
| Field | Fictional proposal | Source or open question |
|---|---|---|
| Decision requested | Review a proposed new-hire option award | Identify required authorization owner |
| Role and business case | Engineering lead owning the first production team | Approved role description |
| Instrument and quantity | 2,000 proposed options | Instrument type and terms require review |
| Percentage basis | Not supplied; no percentage claimed | Finance to provide a defined denominator if needed |
| Employment start | Proposed December 1 | Hiring record; distinct from vesting start |
| Vesting schedule and start | Not yet confirmed | Use actual proposed award terms |
| Price / valuation reference | No personal estimate inserted | Authorized finance or adviser input needed |
| Supporting packet | Role brief, relevant plan and draft agreement | Version and access checked |
| Review outcome needed | Questions, required next decisions and communication limits | Named reviewer and follow-up date |
An incomplete percentage is not improved by guessing a denominator. A draft schedule is not improved by inserting a familiar “standard” schedule without authority.
Make the quantity readable without turning it into a promise
If a reviewer supplies a denominator, label its date, instrument coverage and basis. Issued shares, outstanding awards and a fully diluted denominator are not interchangeable. Do not claim a percentage when the source only supplies a unit count.
The option-pool lesson explains denominator-sensitive pool math. This request brief does not recalculate the pool or establish that the proposed award is available for issuance.
Attach evidence, not unnecessary personal information
- Use the current source document and its version, not an unexplained screenshot alone.
- Keep the proposed role and business rationale specific enough to review.
- Include only compensation and identity details the reviewer needs.
- Put unresolved terms in a questions column with a named owner.
- State whether candidate communication has already occurred and what it said.
The SEC’s Rule 701 guidance describes a compensatory-offering exemption, not approval of this request. Required company and professional review remains separate.
Exercise: repair an ambiguous request
A request says “Give the hire 0.2%, starting on their first day.” No instrument, denominator, schedule or authority source is attached. What should be clarified before the reviewer treats it as a complete proposal?
Example answer: Ask what instrument and unit count are proposed, what the 0.2% denominator includes and its date, whether “starting” means employment or vesting, what schedule is intended and which required decisions govern the proposal. Preserve the original request while recording the answers.
End with an actionable handoff
Keep the brief and authorized source packet in Finta Documents. Send one request that makes it easy to say what is checked, what is missing and who owns the next decision.
Do not send a candidate the internal proposal as though it were the final award. The output of this lesson is a better request, not approval or issuance.
General education with fictional examples, not individualized legal, tax, valuation or investment advice. Have the appropriate professional review decisions affecting actual awards or transactions.