Skip to main content

Deal Terms: Liquidation Preferences, Founder Options

Liquidation preferences have always seemed to be a case of having your cake and eating it too for investors. I'm guessing the original intent was strictly for downside protection. But it's become a way for investors to guarantee a certain upside--risk mitigation at the expense of common.

Put another way, it's terms like these that value capital over people. A common example I give when explaining it to incredulous entrepreneurs is this (let me know if I have it right): say you raise $1 million at a $4 million pre, giving a total of $5 million., so 20% to the VC.

Then you exit for $10 million--double, right? So what's the VC take?

28%.

First million out the door, leaving $9 million, then pro-rata distribution, so 20% of $9 million = $1.8 million, so $2.8 million total, or 28% of the exit. Return of capital is important--I think as an entrepreneur I am obligated to return capital, so I don't mind the downside preferences---a 1x cap makes sense to me.

Of course a $20 million exit makes the impact of the preference a lot less, but it still values that capital more than the people, which, ironically, are what VCs typically say they value most in a deal.

On options for founders: I have mixed feelings about this and have been on both sides of the argument. As a founder you create the idea, company, revenue, model, value, etc. And you have stock for that.

And then you play a ton of roles getting the company to greater value, for which everyone is compensated through salary and options, except you, where you end up donating your labor for the benefit of everyone else. As you add more people, you get more and more diluted.

And I say suck it up early on.

You get a lot of special treatment as a founder, so don't nitpick about a couple points of employee options. Not early, anyway. Later on, though, you get past the love stage.

If you're CEO, you now have tons of liability and new, real responsibilities and obligations that go far beyond the creation and founding of a company. And I think you should get market-average options, and market-average salary if there's enough revenue and investment, and if you take less than market salary your options should increase with a 20% kicker or so to address their illiquidity.

My biggest regret in the 4 companies I've started, funded, and run has nothing to do with ownership, though. It's that I put in 80 to 100 hour weeks, thinking that I had to do that to make it work, and nearly killed myself doing it. It's amazing how much time some of us spend obsessing about opportunity while neglecting ourselves.

Options? Screw the options. You'll get much more out of a life coach, and none of the resentment from employees and investors because you're dickering over a few points in options on top of your massive stake.

Comments

  1. 80-100 hour weeks, for something you love: Priceless!

    I figure that a guy who has "done" three companies must love what it entails.

    What would you have done as an alternative to the obsessive hours? In hindsight, do you believe that there wasn't incremental value to the additional attention?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, I love parts of it. I'm thinking about the alternatives...there's definitely a benefit to the attention--more knowledge. But there's effective time and less effective time. Something I struggle with.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beta Signup

I've been working for quite a while on a new search concept, though the further in I get, the closer the rest of the world gets to what we're doing. So today I'm inviting you to sign up for the rather modest beta, which will be ready soon if we can nail down a few difficult  details. Jawaya is a way of navigating the web and getting better results. And that's as much as I can say right now, because we're not a funded startup, and things are moving really fast in this space--it's going to be very competitive. I predict there will be about 10 funded startups in the next 6 months doing something similar. One of them will be mine, and we aim to make it the best. We're raising a round of capital to fund the team, and are shooting for early sustainability. This is my fifth company; my fourth in the tech space, and my third software company. I think it will be the biggest and can possibly have a positive impact on the world by reducing the amount of time it takes

Where Innovation Happens

As I get closer to a go/no-go decision on a project, I've been thinking about the difference about my vision for the project and the supportive innovations to enable the core innovations The vision combines (in unequal parts) product, core innovation as I imagine it, the application of that core innovation, design, marketing,  developer ecosystem, and business development. The core innovation enables everything else, but it's the application of the innovation that makes it meaningful, useful, and in this case, fun. This week we're testing initial approaches to the implementation for our specific application, and that's where we'll develop the enabling innovations, which is basically where the rubber meets the road. The difference is that the enabling innovation happens at the source of real problems only encountered in the making of something, and in a project like this just getting the essence of it right isn't enough; it also has to be safe, the compone

The Real Jobs Problem

It's the economy, stupid.  Well, yes, it always has been, if you're in the distortion field of politics.  But whose economy? The pundits, the White House, the Republican candidates all miss the mark. They keep talking about debt, taxes, and monetary policy. None of those things tell the real story behind today's economy.  The Old Economy Keynes was right--in the old economy. Economy gets weak, pump some money into the economy through public works projects, which  1) puts people to work, which  2) boosts the economy and  3) generates new tax revenue, while  4) leaving us with another generation of reliable infrastructure to support  5) more growth (for growth's sake, which is another post).  The Beach Ball Imagine a beach ball, partially deflated to represent a recession. Got it? Now imagine the govt pumping that beach ball back up through sensible public investment (which we haven't seen for decades). The New Economy Same beach ball, same pum