Employee Share Schemes for Technology Professionals
- Norma Falconer
- Jun 11
- 9 min read
Technology professionals often build wealth in a way that looks different from the traditional Australian household.
Salary is only one part of the picture.
There might be restricted stock units, an employee stock purchase plan, overseas brokerage accounts, foreign tax reporting, Australian superannuation, employer-funded insurance, and plans to support future family life.
Each part has its own rules.
The difficulty is that life does not separate them neatly.
A young couple in their mid-thirties came to seek advice.
The had strong income, meaningful savings, a new home loan, employer share benefits, international assets and a desire to build wealth carefully.
Both worked in technology.
One was a Lead Engineer. The other was a Senior Developer.
Their combined salary income was $350,000.
The engineer also received a quarterly employer grant of USD $125,000, converted in the advice to approximately AUD $200,000, vesting over four years on a quarterly basis.
This created opportunity.
It also created complexity.
Their home loan was $750,000. They held $350,000 in a joint bank account. They had personal assets of approximately $1.7 million, superannuation of $150,000 and total liabilities of $800,000. They also had a tax liability of $35,000 from the prior year.
The numbers showed a strong financial base for the household with good income and meaningful assets.
The planning need was not whether they were doing well.
They were.
The work was to give structure to the income, the mortgage, the employer shares, the tax obligations, the superannuation and the next stage of family life.
When employee share schemes for technology professionals become part of household cashflow
Employee share schemes are often described as a workplace benefit.
For high-income technology professionals, they are more than that.
They influence tax.
They affect cashflow.
They change investment risk.
They shape mortgage planning.
They affect when a family has access to capital.
They also influence the level of exposure a household has to one employer.
In this case, these professionals in technology, wanted to review the employee stock purchase program and consider whether it still made sense. They also wanted to manage tax on stock sales and reallocate money where better long-term opportunities existed.
That is the correct way to approach equity remuneration.
The value is not in holding employer shares for the sake of holding them.
The value is in deciding what the shares are meant to do.
Some shares might fund tax payments.
Some might support the offset account.
Some might remain invested.
Some might be sold to reduce concentration risk.
Some might support a future property decision.
Some might form part of the family’s liquidity strategy between ages 50 and 60.
Without that structure, employer equity often accumulates in the background until it becomes too large to ignore.
The modelling tested different choices
The advice compared several strategies.
One option was to retain everything as it was, take the full quarterly grant in stock and continue the ESPP. The projected net asset position at life expectancy was approximately $6 million.
Another option was to maximise superannuation, take the full quarterly grant in stock and continue the ESPP. That increased the projected position to $9 million.
A third option used a mix of cash and stock for the quarterly grant and continued the ESPP, with projected assets of $9.2 million.
Another option took the full quarterly grant in cash and ceased the ESPP, producing projected assets of $20 million.
The proposed strategy produced the highest projected net asset position at life expectancy, at $22 million.
The strength of this work was not only the final number.
It was the comparison.
The advice did not assume that employer shares should always be held. It did not assume they should always be sold. It tested the practical effect of different decisions against the family’s broader life.
For these professionals in technology, taking the quarterly grant in cash reduced reliance on employer stock while still allowing the ESPP to continue where it served a purpose.
That gave the equity benefit a more deliberate role in the plan.
It supported diversification, tax planning, the mortgage offset strategy and future flexibility.
The offset account gave the strategy a practical home
The mortgage offset account was central to the advice.
The family wanted to direct surplus cashflow into the offset account to reduce interest costs while keeping money available for future investment opportunities.
That suited their stage of life.
They had a large home loan, strong income, changing equity remuneration and future family goals. They were also considering future property investment, although that was not the right step yet.
The advice projected that, by directing surplus cashflow into the offset account, they would accumulate $600,000 over ten years. The modelling also projected interest savings of $500,000 and the home loan being repaid ten years earlier, based on the assumptions used.
That is a strong example of cashflow doing more than sitting in the bank.
The money reduced loan interest.
It preserved access.
It created flexibility for future property or investment decisions.
It also gave the family a buffer while the tax, share and superannuation strategies were implemented.
For a high-income technology family, this is often more useful than rushing into another investment before the foundation is ready.
Tax planning across Australia and the United States
One of the technology professionals had a position that was more complex because of their U.S. citizenship.
The advice recognised that Australian superannuation and investment decisions needed to be considered alongside U.S. tax consequences. The advice specifically noted that rolling over superannuation is not a taxable event under Australian tax law, but could be reportable or taxable under U.S. tax law.
This changed the way the advice approached superannuation.
The client had already used their unused concessional contributions in the previous two years. The advice recommended salary sacrifice up to the concessional cap, but did not recommend personal non-concessional contributions for them because of the potential U.S. classification of superannuation as a Foreign Grantor Trust and the risk of complex or unfavourable U.S. tax treatment.
The partner's position was different.
They had around $70,000 in unused concessional contribution cap available across prior years. The advice recommended a catch-up concessional contribution.
The estimated tax saving was $15,000.
The advice also recommended a non-concessional contribution for this client and future consideration of annual non-concessional contributions, because their tax position and residency considerations differed from the US tax resident.
This is where prudent advice becomes important.
The same strategy does not suit both partners simply because they are in the same household.
The engineer's U.S. tax position placed limits around certain Australian superannuation strategies.
The developer's unused contribution caps created an opportunity.
The advice responded to each person’s circumstances rather than forcing one approach across the couple.
Creating a liquidity strategy before superannuation access
One of the couple's goals was to create a tax-efficient income strategy between ages 50 and 60, before superannuation became available.
The advice recommended a tax-efficient investment structure for one partner, beginning with the sale of Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) being a part of the employee share schemes for technology professionals.
The modelling projected a combined investment outcome of $122,000 at age 50.
The role of this structure was not to replace superannuation.
It sat beside superannuation.
Superannuation was being built for later retirement. The investment was intended to help create flexible, tax-effective capital outside superannuation that might assist during the years before preservation age access.
This is important for professionals who want the choice to reduce work earlier than the ordinary retirement timetable.
The plan needed capital in more than one place.
Superannuation for long-term retirement.
Offset for debt reduction and liquidity.
Tax-effective investments for medium to long-term accessible capital.
Cashflow for ongoing savings and tax obligations.
This gave the family more than accumulation.
It gave the money different jobs.
Insurance needed to reflect employment risk
The technology developer already held employer-funded cover through their employer benefits.
Employer-funded cover has value.
It also relies on continued employment.
The advice referred to recent layoffs in the technology sector and noted that relying only on employer-provided cover might not provide enough security for the family.
The recommendation was to establish personal insurance for both technology professionals.
The purpose was not to add cover for the sake of adding cover. It was to make sure protection did not depend only on an employer arrangement.
This was also relevant because they were preparing for future family growth.
The advice recognised that family planning, maternity leave, possible changes in income and future private education costs needed to be considered within the protection strategy.
Insurance was not treated as a product purchase.
It was part of the family’s structure.
If income supports the mortgage, future children, long-term investing and retirement savings, the protection of that income needs the same level of care as the investment recommendations.
Estate planning across more than one country
Estate planning was another important part of the advice.
They wanted valid wills and a structure that simplified asset transfers and reduced tax complications across Dubai, the United States and Australia.
The Australian advice recommended wills, enduring powers of attorney, medical powers of attorney, guardianship documents and binding death nominations.
Assets outside Australia remained outside the scope of the advice. The recommendation was to speak with an estate planning specialist who could advise on assets in other jurisdictions.
This was a careful boundary.
A financial plan should not pretend to provide legal advice in countries where the adviser is not authorised to advise.
The right work is to identify the risk; explain why it needs attention and refer the client to the correct specialist.
The advice noted that failing to address estate planning for assets outside Australia could lead to tax and legal complications across jurisdictions.
Their financial life was already international.
Their estate planning needed to reflect that.
The work done for this family
The best work in this case was the integration.
The share scheme was not reviewed separately from the tax plan.
The offset account was not treated as idle cash.
The superannuation strategy was adjusted for each spouse.
The U.S. tax position was acknowledged rather than ignored.
The investment strategy was used to support the liquidity gap before superannuation access.
The insurance review considered reliance on employer cover and the family’s future plans.
The estate planning recommendations recognised assets and legal issues across Australia, the United States and Dubai.
The modelling compared several strategies instead of presenting one path without context.
That is the kind of advice high-income technology professionals often need.
Not more complexity.
A considered structure for complexity that already exists.
These professionals were not looking for a single answer about shares, superannuation, insurance or tax. Their financial life required each decision to be assessed in relation to the others.
When the employer grant was tested as cash rather than stock, the outcome changed.
When the unused concessional cap was identified, the tax strategy changed.
When the U.S. tax position was considered, the superannuation contribution strategy changed.
When the offset account was modelled, the mortgage strategy became part of wealth creation.
When employer-funded insurance was reviewed, the family protection strategy became less dependent on one employer.
That is intentional planning.
It uses the evidence available, respects the client’s circumstances and gives each recommendation a defined purpose.
Think Capital works with technology professionals, high-income earners, executives and families with complex remuneration who need RSUs, ESPP, tax, superannuation, mortgage strategy, insurance and estate planning considered together.
The Ultimate Financial Independence Strategy Session reviews how employee shares and equity remuneration fit within your broader financial structure before property, family or long-term wealth decisions are made.
Prudent Advice. Practical Solutions. Progressive Results.
At Think Capital Advice, we believe in empowering our clients with tailored financial strategies to achieve their goals. Curious to know more about who we are and what drives us? Visit our About Us page to learn about our mission, values, and how we’re committed to delivering prudent advice, practical solutions, and progressive results. Let’s create a better financial future together!
 | Norma Falconer is a Business Owner, Entrepreneur, Financial Planner, Portfolio and Investment Manager, Personal Insurance Specialist and Estate Planner, in Australia, renowned for her prudent advice, practical solutions, and progressive results. As the Founder of Think Capital Advice, Norma combines deep technical expertise with a compassionate, personalised and client-centric approach. Norma specialises in guiding high-income-earning business owners, professionals and their families toward achieving their version of financial independence. Her dedication to excellence is supported by a commitment to making complex financial concepts accessible and actionable for her clients. She is Professionally Licensed in Australia, FASEA-accredited, a Tax (Financial) Adviser, and holds multiple qualifications, including a Post-Graduate Diploma of Financial Planning and certifications in results coaching. Beyond her professional achievements, Norma is an advocate for community empowerment and has served on various boards, including Swan City Youth Service and the Businesswomen’s Association. She is also a recognised speaker and media contributor, sharing insights that simplify the path to financial independence. The team at Think Capital Advice excel in working with pre-retirees, professional families, business owners and Australians with significant superannuation balances, who want their retirement decisions supported by careful modelling and integrated financial strategies. These strategies help to improve financial stability through maximising cashflow, growing wealth, utilising tax-effective strategies, and ensuring that your legacy is protected. Learn more at Think Capital Advice. |
Warning - General Advice Only | Important notice
The information provided in this article and on this website is general information only. It has been prepared without taking into account your individual financial needs, circumstances and objectives. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information, it is not guaranteed. You should obtain professional advice before acting on the information contained in this publication. You should obtain a Product Disclosure Statement relating to the products mentioned on our website. We can assist you in determining the appropriateness of any product or information mentioned on this website.
Comments