[tmarman]

RSUs are more akin to salary (i.e., your RSU grant / vesting period = annual salary increase) than a bonus where you get the cash upfront. So yeah, if the choice was $100k signing bonus or $100k RSU, the analysis is different - but that's not how they work.

One of the key benefits of RSUs is that they are priced and granted upfront and can appreciate (and earn dividends) before they vest.

A more concrete example: let's imagine you joined AAPL Jan 1, 2019 and were granted $100k in RSUs. You'd get 667 shares, and vest 83 shares every six months. If the stock doesn't move at all, that's the same as the additional salary (though salary is better since it's prorated evenly as opposed to bi-annual "bonuses").

Of course, the stock prices don't stay the same... and that's where the potential comes in. In the last year, AAPL has doubled. In that example, you would have vested 83 shares at $200 ($16,675) in the summer and 83 shares last week at $300 ($25k) vs. $25k salary in the first year.

In the same period, FB and GOOG have gone up 50%, AMZN has gone up 15%, NFLX (which doesn't do RSUs to my knowledge, only stock options) went up 6%. In all of those cases, you'd be better off in Y1 with the RSU grant.

Obviously, yes, there's downside risk to that too. The floor is still much higher tha stock options which can easily be worth nothing if underwater... but when you factor in that this is 20-50% of your total compensation, that upside/risk seems worth it.