Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

stefantheard.com

691–700 of 943 posts

Re: Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

#691
post #639
post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If a founder cashes out 10% of their position for $500k @ $25M Series A valuation, that de-risks a lot of their personal life. But when the startup ends up selling for $250M, that $500k of 'early' selling would have been worth $5M (less any dilution between rounds) - hard not to regret the choice in that case even if hedging is going to be the correct choice 99% of the time. IMHO, it's very easy not to regret, with…

Regret is perhaps too strong of a word. But $5M is $5M even if you have $45M. Sure, it won't change your life since you have the $45M, but the incremental investing / philanthropy / estate / family help etc that it allows you is real in absolute terms. The other thing I've noticed is that for people on the other side of this transaction, it's not like "smaller numbers" all of a sudden become immaterial. $1M is still…

[deleted]

Re: Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

#692
Founder risk is total myth. I was at a startup where, when it was apparent there would be no more funding, the vc’s permitted principal founder to essentially embezzle the remaining few $M. He and his cronies then lived off the proceeds for the better part of a decade in a kind of “brown dwarf” of a company of the same name.

And it was the SECOND time he had done this in his career!

Re: Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

#693
Founder here who turned down an offer to secondary in our B round.

It would have brought ~$5M before tax. This would have been a material change in my financial security. I live in a high-cost US city and have been putting off starting a family. It would have removed many concerns that are holding us back from feeling like it's the right time for us.

My thinking has evolved, but is roughly:

(1) The argument from VCs in favor of a secondary is often: If the founders take some money off the table, they have downside protection and are more strongly incentivized towards only a massive outcome. This aligns their risk profile more closely to their (Seed/A/B stage) VCs who model their portfolios based on bimodal (boom or bust) outcomes. It helps prevent scenarios where the founders safely exit for $Xm leaving the Series B VC with a 1x'ish return that's against their profile.

(2) I didn't take the offer because I felt it would be unfair to our early employees who took a big risk leaving FAANG compensation to come build with us. I ruminate on this often. It would have changed my life, and the only difference to them would be some numbers in our cap table being 10% different. In retrospect, doing it pro-rata for everyone would have solved this, but I'm not sure the VC making the offer would have gone for it. Who knows.

(3) I do not think founders and early employees deserve exactly the same treatment. While early folks took a similar financial risk as I did, they aren't chained to the company in the same way. They can quit tomorrow and go back to FAANG jobs. A founder has to either find their own replacement, sell the company, or run a long and painful wind-down process and return money to the VCs. All of these options take months-to-quarters of work, create reputational risk, suck emotionally, etc. And that's in addition to still losing all your money like the employee did. I don't think it's the same.

(4) You don't get nice-guy points for turning down the offer. Nobody on my team knows that my cofounder and I turned it down, so we get no credit for doing right by them. Telling them about it feels somewhere between a humble brag and guilt tripping them into working harder. The motivation to do "the right thing" has to be purely internal.

(5) If you're starting a company I strongly suggest you give your employees the option to early-exercise / 43b their shares. Few folks seem to know enough about their options to take advantage of this but it prevents the lock-in scenario where someone wants to quit but can't because the AMT bill would devastate them. We have had this since the seed round but sadly only a few people pay attention to it, and I can only suggest it so much without creating a financial-advice legal risk.

While I feel like I did right by my team, I can put an exact price on the cost of that positive moral sensation. My team might even think I'm stupid for not taking it when they would have.

It's pretty easy to say what's obviously right and wrong in HN comments, but when all you have to do to pocket a life changing amount of money is say "ok", the decision feels much heavier.

Re: Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

#694

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Especially 5 years down the road when you own ~30% of a $100M company - but you know there's a decent chance you'll walk away with very little, if not nothing - while your peers are all making ~$1M per year working 6 hour days at FAANG with a life partner, maybe kids, and a sizable net worth that isn't going away. Sure, you've got a decent chance to rocket past them in wealth. But they've got everything they really w…

You’re obviously overstating the FAANG SWE lifestyle. But beyond that, it’s interesting you picked FAANG SWE and not startup SWE as the basis of your comparison. The whole premise of the article is that startup employees are often sold a bag of goods about equity and upside that’s simply a terrible deal. Not terrible in the sense that it’s highly risky, but that it doesn’t even come close to compensating for that ris…

> high risks high upside but really its extreme risk and almost no upside

Extreme risk? Some startups pay fair salaries.

I don't think startups are that risky (unless you start putting money into them, that is a suckers deal). Or if you work for free, what you naturally should not do. Not everyone can get a FAANG job so it is not very clear alternative.

If you get paid a slightly below market rate and get some worthless equity, what's the big deal? You can always quit any time and change to a corporate career. It is not an end of the world.

Re: Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

#695

The other aspect that's not factored in here is that often founders can spend years in search mode, living on savings or some early stage pre-seed VC, with zero guarantee of success or ever even finding something to work on. Took you 5 years to get to a concept that finally justified hiring someone to help you grow it? Equity is the only form of compensation you have for all that work, and it might still be worth $0…

The asymmetric reward is the _company_ having a liquidity event thereby enriching the founder, NOT a funding round enriching the founder.

Re: Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

#696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many huge private companies, like Stripe, have found ways to provide liquidity to their employees without going public, e.g., through tender offers. Some more recent examples of companies where early employees did very well would be AirBnB, Coinbase and DoorDash.

Early executives at those companies did very well. Early employees did well, but risk-adjusted , not really. I know people who were fairly early at those companies and they own nice SFH in the Bay Area but they're still working as Directors or whatever. Consider that if you could make 400k (including liquid stock) in compensation at FAANG but you take 180k at the startup, you're basically betting 220k a year on the c…

If you can get that 400k FAANG job, take it, for ducks sake. Not everyone can, and for some of them the startup deal can be quite OK.

People who can get 400k job at FAANG should be smart enough to avoid shitty startups. Looks like they aren't, based on these comments.

Re: Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

#697

Founder liquidity events are done in secret in startup land. There's a simple reason for that. It's wrong. Startup employees, especially early ones, take on most of the risk that founders do. They take pay cuts. They work insane hours. They sacrifice. And they have the same liquidity needs, too. It's wrong to make them wait a decade for a fraction of the liquidity that founders got in the Series B. It's wrong to forc…

I don’t understand the framing here, where they need to justify why they get paid. They created and secured a thing and sell off chunks of it along the way when it suits them. What’s strange about that? If you buy a cheap stretch of land in the middle of nowhere and develop it and sell pieces of it off, that’s just understandable. When you come on board as an employee, you’re just not in the same situation.

This makes sense if you're coming in as employee #50, but what's the difference between a founder and the first engineer?

Re: Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

#698
post #247

This post has managed to piss off everyone: employees who didn't realize founders were getting liquidity events while they're still sitting on their more-often-than-not valueless equity, and founders who feel they've earned it and don't like the implication they haven't.

Good point. Its interesting to see the comment thread here. The part to me that I see as surprising is dismissal of the stress of taking VC money and being a founder. It is a job thats incredibly demanding. Which is eye opening to me that that's how people see it. If it was so easy why aren't there more of them and more companies? Early employee is tough - unless the company is on a significant trajectory the options…

> If it was so easy why aren't there more of them and more companies?

Wait, is this a serious question? The limiting factor is VC money, of course.

Re: Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

#699

The other aspect that's not factored in here is that often founders can spend years in search mode, living on savings or some early stage pre-seed VC, with zero guarantee of success or ever even finding something to work on. Took you 5 years to get to a concept that finally justified hiring someone to help you grow it? Equity is the only form of compensation you have for all that work, and it might still be worth $0…

The asymmetric reward is the _company_ having a liquidity event thereby enriching the founder, NOT a funding round enriching the founder.

At least in my personal experience of doing this, you're often many years of living on savings and are in a bunch of debt and being able to get some cash from a funding event really helps with relieving the stress of barely making ends meet. Investors expect you to stay hungry for as long as possible, so even your salary is complete garbage, and the funding secondary is an absolute life saver that lets you sleep a little bit better at night after many years of dipping into the piggy bank.

Re: Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

#700

The situation I recently went through reads like a horror story: > was the founding engineer at a startup, essentially do co-founder work for 18 months getting the company off the ground. > company is a breakout success, raises a large growth round. > founders each take a couple of million dollars off the table in secondaries, no option for employee liquidity. > founders start thinking about early employees as "probl…

This happened to me as well, but even worse because they killed my equity by getting rid of me on month 11 of year one. I joined a company as employee #2 (though, I started the same day as #1). I started working with the founder and co-founder in a We Work office that barely fit the four of us. Within 11 months the company was worth over a billion dollars and my wife was about to give birth. At this time the company…

Wait, your 11 month old company with a handful of employees was valued at a billion?
Post reply on HN