Honestly, this whole thing looks like a big clusterfark. Lots of mistakes. Fundamental to them all is the idea that being "funded" equals "arrival." It doesn't. Revenue and customers equals arrival. Ideally it would be best not to be "funded" at all, since OPM == debt.
Yes. The fact that people "celebrate" a funding event is really bass-ackwards when you think about it. It says that the company couldn't figure out how to grow without bringing in a bunch of financiers, who have a low hit rate (3 go north, 3 go south, 4 turn into the living dead), who provided negative 10 yr returns even with Google in the portfolio, and who take 2-3% + 20% of exit from their own investors. Definitel…
The Forgotten Founder: A Silicon Valley Tale of Humiliation and Revenge
71–80 of 112 posts
Re: The Forgotten Founder: A Silicon Valley Tale of Humiliation and Revenge
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our series A investors wanted vesting and we said no. They were cool with it. Vesting for founders is insane. Never accept it. Vesting for execs is mandatory and has saved me once already, ironically because our investors demanded it. Once again I'm surprised at how very very few founders have a thorough knowledge of what they're signing up for and how to get what they want. It's your company. Act like it. You don't…
Wow, disagree. Team of 3 founders, no vesting, one walks in month 6, the others stay for 4 years, build company; in the end, all three are compensated the same way. That's a terrible way to allocate equity. Resetting the vesting clock to zero at funding sounds insane, but if you need the money, the people offering it do set the terms. I know a lot of people who've gotten institutional VC rounds for companies; I belie…
Re: The Forgotten Founder: A Silicon Valley Tale of Humiliation and Revenge
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree but this is an unfortunately common behavior. During the dot-com boom many people picked up hugely expensive homes based upon the the perceived value of their shares. We all know how that turned out for most. Even now I hear of people buying homes way out of their means because they have some stock in the currently hot company of the week that has some assumed paper value.
How do you avoid these pitfalls? Just assume and act like you're still poor (or not rich) until you sell your stock?
I feel for Khalid, but he's got to pay for what he did. Crap happens in life and you gotta deal. A lot of the things written about him seem to point to a somewhat sociopathic personality. Maybe he could run a Wall street company when he gets out of jail.
Re: The Forgotten Founder: A Silicon Valley Tale of Humiliation and Revenge
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree but this is an unfortunately common behavior. During the dot-com boom many people picked up hugely expensive homes based upon the the perceived value of their shares. We all know how that turned out for most. Even now I hear of people buying homes way out of their means because they have some stock in the currently hot company of the week that has some assumed paper value.
How do you avoid these pitfalls? Just assume and act like you're still poor (or not rich) until you sell your stock?
Re: The Forgotten Founder: A Silicon Valley Tale of Humiliation and Revenge
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, disagree. Team of 3 founders, no vesting, one walks in month 6, the others stay for 4 years, build company; in the end, all three are compensated the same way. That's a terrible way to allocate equity. Resetting the vesting clock to zero at funding sounds insane, but if you need the money, the people offering it do set the terms. I know a lot of people who've gotten institutional VC rounds for companies; I belie…
I think the point you're trying to get at here is the same as what I was saying: Vesting should occur over the same time period as the vestees are making a significant contribution to the company. The situation when a company is founded (founders will be building it in the future, and vesting is appropriate) is completely different from the situation where a profitable and rapidly-growing company takes investment (fo…
The other half of my point is that in some transactions, "should" and "fair" don't matter. Either the terms make sense for them, or they don't. Terms that make sense aren't fair? Can't reasonably accept them? Ok. No deal.
VCs are professional deal makers. They can't code, they can't round HTML corners, they can't even write copy. Their one skillset is optimizing the problem of allocating other people's money in small companies for optimal return.
Parent commenter is right in that you should push back and negotiate as hard as you can. If you're a better bet than any of the 10 other prospects they're prepared to fund instead of you, you might win. Otherwise, nope. But there's no sense getting angry about it; nobody can reasonably say that a venture capitalist is obligated to fund anyone, on any terms. The sole moral obligation of a VC is to obtain the maximum return for their limited partners. Some of them bend over backwards to try to make things better for company "operators"; in a very reasonable way of looking at things, the VCs who do that may be the ones who are acting unethically.
Re: The Forgotten Founder: A Silicon Valley Tale of Humiliation and Revenge
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
"But a lifestyle company founder can get equally rich - just not one huge pile of money at one time." True. Especially when you consider that investment isn't income . When an investor gives you one huge pile of money at one time, it's not for you , it's for the business .
Somebody forgot to tell that to Groupon.
It's this sort of wasteful spending that kind of makes me want them to fail.
Re: The Forgotten Founder: A Silicon Valley Tale of Humiliation and Revenge
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since he was a contractor, not an employee, labor laws may not apply.
PLus the aspect that he doesn't have citizenship
Re: The Forgotten Founder: A Silicon Valley Tale of Humiliation and Revenge
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You file with your labor board. Excuse my ignorance, but there was no union involved far as I can tell. What does this comment mean?
Nothing to do with unions, that's a reference to the state labor board that oversees the labor laws. Basically, if you are someone's employee with an agreement that you will do work for compensated, but then do not receive the compensation, the state can help get your wages. Here's Colorado's, the states are all similar: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=12493913...
Re: The Forgotten Founder: A Silicon Valley Tale of Humiliation and Revenge
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
On top of everything you said, folks should step back and realize that VCs or VC-related interests have historically powered all the most-read startup media (TechCrunch, HN, AVC, etc). This has an influence. According to Dow Jones Venturesource, there were only 522 M&As, buyouts, or IPOs in 2011 among venture-backed companies. 522. By contrast, over 300 people are injured by lightning strikes per year, in the US.
522. By contrast, over 300 people are injured by lightning strikes per year, in the US. While I appreciate your point, this is a very flawed analogy. There are only a few thousand people in a position to shoot for an M&A each year, and a few hundred million people in a position to get hit by lightning. Relative to the number of adults in the U.S., very few people start companies that could potentially be scalable eac…
Let's be clear: It is vanishingly unlikely.
In addition:
"In my experience, both take a roughly similar toll on your life, but a lifestyle business doesn't have the upside to make the whole thing worth it. In a software development industry, a family where both partners are professional can bring in > $250k in salary each year working regular full time jobs, which is a very cushy lifestyle. I see no sense in working 16 hour days for a shot at the same salary."
For a talk I gave at Lessconf a few days ago, I broke down the numbers. Assuming 25% ownership in a startup which reached an $8 million dollar sale (which is much higher than most, as I'm sure you know), that results in less than $2 million post-tax.
I ran the numbers in the talk to demonstrate how much my business, Freckle Time Tracking, a most boring SaaS, would make in the same time period and beyond the 5 & 1/2 years of leisure post-3-year-lock-in. (Assuming a not immoderate spend of $10k/mo and savings of $5k/mo -- remember, if you get lock-in -- and most do -- you will have to work out of the Valley, where everything is expensive.)
My time tracking product alone will bring in significantly more than the buyout after 6 years, nearly triple what an $8 million dollar buyout would over a period of 9 years. And what's more, it keeps earning.
That's just one of the little "lifestyle" businesses my husband & I have going. We don't work 16-hour days. We don't even work 40-hour weeks. We did for about a year, year and a half, but we also took weeks and weeks off in the same time period.
Time tracking, let me repeat. Boring, "saturated," blah blah blah. Time tracking alone will make me us millionaires by the time I'm 30 -- on the side, and better yet, with 100% ownership. :)
And, as I said, we've got other things going as well.
Making an actual business with actual profit is different than what everyone calls a "startup" these days. You don't have to work your ass off. You just have to serve a market which needs serving, and provide more value than you're charging. These are different skill sets than hunting down VC and viral growth. More useful, in the end, and with a higher rate of return for the many instead of a few.
Re: The Forgotten Founder: A Silicon Valley Tale of Humiliation and Revenge
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point you're trying to get at here is the same as what I was saying: Vesting should occur over the same time period as the vestees are making a significant contribution to the company. The situation when a company is founded (founders will be building it in the future, and vesting is appropriate) is completely different from the situation where a profitable and rapidly-growing company takes investment (fo…
That is part of my point. The other half of my point is that in some transactions, "should" and "fair" don't matter. Either the terms make sense for them, or they don't. Terms that make sense aren't fair? Can't reasonably accept them? Ok. No deal. VCs are professional deal makers. They can't code, they can't round HTML corners, they can't even write copy. Their one skillset is optimizing the problem of allocating oth…
I'll give you "fair", but I think "should" has a very real meaning: If for every deal X which does not have property P there is a deal X' which does have property P such that for every participant utility(X') >= utility(X), then the participants should negotiate a deal with which has property P. To take an example I ran into recently: You should never simultaneously buy a life annuity and life insurance (on average they cancel each other; but you have to pay two risk premiums).
This may sound trivial, but it's useful for recognizing dishonest actors: If someone wants a deal which doesn't have the properties you think it should have, their utility function isn't what you think it is. In the above example, if your financial advisor is trying to convince you to buy both a life annuity and life insurance, it tells you that they're thinking about the commissions they can earn, not about optimizing your finances.
Some [VCs] bend over backwards to try to make things better for company "operators"; in a very reasonable way of looking at things, the VCs who do that may be the ones who are acting unethically.
I agree: They're sacrificing the current fund's returns (by making deals which are suboptimal for them) in order to improve their reputation (a personal benefit) and allow themselves to get better deals in the future (thereby improving future funds' returns).
An angel can spend his money to be your friend. A VC shouldn't spend his clients' money to be your friend.