Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silicon Valley's best kept secret: Founder liquidity

stefantheard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

851–860 of 943 posts

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

#851

Post by kelnos »

gen220 wrote: post #458
bradlys wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d say you’re uncommon. I’ve never seen anyone who is a typical engineer making $250k/yr at a startup that’s below $1B valuation. Same for the amount of work you’re doing and that it’s remote with that compensation. It’s possible you’d be making $700k+/yr if you were at google. About triple what you are now.

I think one component of their point is that the marginal utility of money beyond $200k/year cash comp is quite small, especially if you (1) came to tech early in life (2) plan on staying in it for most of your working life. With that perspective, $200k/year and $700k/year both reduce to "well-paid". Also, a Staff title at a Seed or Series A startup can definitely ask for $250k/year, although they'd likely be trading…

Whoa, that doesn't even pass the smell test, let alone any kind of deeper analysis.

Certainly this depends on where you're going to live, but if you're in a place where startups are common (even considering the current remote work situation), $200k/yr will either be a stretch for you to meet your living expenses, or will require that you live fairly modestly, especially if you have dependents. If you are able to put any of that into savings/investments, it will be a fairly small amount.

With $700k/yr, you can live quite comfortably, while putting quite a bit away for retirement.

And I don't think your (1) & (2) points really make sense here. Investments compound over time; starting off in your early 20s putting $50k in your investment/retirement accounts every year vs $10k will give you a very different outcome once you reach retirement age. Hell, you'll reach a very different outcome in your 40s. (But honestly, if you decided to live a $200k/yr lifestyle at $700k/yr, you'll be saving so much money that you could easily retire in your 30s.)

It will also mean getting to put a down payment on that house much earlier, and/or being able to afford more of a house. And in the meantime, it will mean being able to dine at fancier restaurants, take more luxurious vacations, buy more expensive toys, etc., if that's the sort of thing you value. And I wouldn't even consider all this to be lifestyle creep (as you genuinely wisely advise against downthread of a sibling comment); this kind of lifestyle would be perfectly sustainable at $700k/yr, but not at $200k/yr.

(But really, though, who the hell is making $700k/yr in their early 20s? Very few, very exceptional people, that's who.)

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

#852

Post by kelnos »

mbesto wrote: post #311
bradleyjg wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All you’re saying is that in the contemporary context it’s exceedingly foolish to be an employee at an early startup. The VCs and founders have optimized away all the incentive. Eventually the message will reach even naive 22 year olds.

> All you’re saying is that in the contemporary context it’s exceedingly foolish to be an employee at an early startup. As long as naive 22 year olds think have that one friend that stuck around long enough to cash out on an IPO, then yes. On a risk-adjusted basis, this has basically always been the case - you're better off working at FAANG.

I hear this a lot, but most people -- even otherwise-startup people, even if they interview -- don't get to work at a FAANG.

And I think starting now at a FAANG is a lot less lucrative than people seem to think for the average (or even above-average) employee. Certainly nowhere near as lucrative as it was 7-10 years ago or more.

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

#853

Post by Xcelerate »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #784
sandclock wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thousands, you say? [source missing]

There are only ~2300 Series C companies. You're going to need to be this size to have a ~$100M+ exit. There's about ~5 years between funding Series C and Series D [1]. Only ~55 Series C companies got funding in Q1 [2]. Only ~39 Series D companies got funding in Q1 [1]. You're going to have a MAX of about ~.7 * ~2300 * 1/5 = ~322 successful > $100M VC exits per year. Ultimately, you really need to IPO to have a succes…

Not saying I disagree with your conclusion, but if the question is about which is more likely from the perspective of an individual considering going either route, there’s also an implicit “given that an attempt was made”. You’re only comparing the absolute occurrence of each type of event rather than the occurrence relative to the number of attempts made.

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

#854

Post by kelnos »

bradleyjg wrote: post #258
kneath wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen a lot of companies, a lot of rounds. I have known zero founders who have turned down an option to take money off the table (and zero A raises that offered that to employees). I love the idea of your universe, though.

All you’re saying is that in the contemporary context it’s exceedingly foolish to be an employee at an early startup. The VCs and founders have optimized away all the incentive. Eventually the message will reach even naive 22 year olds.

I wouldn't even say "contemporary"; people have been saying this (and I believe it's been true) for decades.

But overall that statement is making a lot of assumptions.

It's assuming money is the main priority for everyone. Sometimes the priority is to have a ton of autonomy and influence on product direction, not have to deal with 8 layers of management, and have an actual, large, often-measurable impact on the company's success.

It's assuming that the alternative is that anyone can work at a FAANG, and be in the higher tiers of salary they offer for their quite-above-average employees (hired today, not 10 or 20 years ago). Most competent, talented people won't pass an interview at a FAANG. Of those that do, many of them will not immediately be making $500k/yr. These points are especially true for 22 year olds, naive or otherwise.

I was going to make a comment about working your ass off at a startup vs. working 9-5 at a more established company, but I know plenty of people at FAANGs who work 50- or 60-hour weeks, every week, and often put in time on weekends. Granted, I would agree that pretty much everyone at a small/early startup is going to be working long hours, while a large number of people at a FAANG are going to enjoy a nice, relaxing life outside of work, so they're not at all equivalent in that regard.

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

#855

Post by kelnos »

hackerlight wrote: post #354
dmurray wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing this by tenure seems like a fairer way to distribute the liquidity. The founders still get preferential access to it, but because they really have taken more risk (bigger stake for a longer time period), not just because they have a better individual negotiating position.

> The founders still get preferential access to it, but because they really have taken more risk It's not related to risk, at least not directly. It's related to the supply of entrepreneurship as a factor of production. Entrepreneurship is scarce, so founders have leverage in any bargaining situation against early employees, who are more numerous and therefore less valuable and less powerful. If 10x the number of peo…

Your comment is somewhat buried downthread, but I think this is a super valuable insight. Ultimately it's not about fairness, it's about who has negotiating power, and about what contract terms founders and investors can get away with and still have a pool of employee talent competent enough for their needs.

But this isn't a static situation. For example, the article author points out that his startup doesn't reduce the options-expiration clock to 90 days after leaving the company, and I've read of similar cases in the past 5 years or so. I wouldn't say this practice is common now, but I feel like this was unheard of around, say, 2010.

After the company I worked at went public in 2016, they did another public offering 2 or 3 months later, before the 6-month lockup period ended. Nonetheless, they allowed employees to participate and sell up to 10% of their shares in this offering. I feel like this sort of thing is more common these days, and absolutely wasn't 20 years ago.

Established still-private companies like Stripe, and even newer ones like OpenAI, have given employees the opportunity to sell some of their equity to new investors during funding rounds, giving them some pre-IPO/pre-exit liquidity. There are certainly other examples of this in recent years. That surely was rare in the past.

I'm not sure what's driving these changes. Employees have been gaining more negotiating power somehow. Maybe that's a function of labor supply. Maybe that's a function of employees being better educated now about corporate finance and the things that are possible but historically not offered. Not sure.

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

#856

Post by kelnos »

anonymousDan wrote: post #198
extragood wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happens. I was offered the option to liquidate up to 20% of my vested shares at my last company's Series A. It was restricted by tenure though (3 years), so it wasn't available to everyone. In retrospect, I should have liquidated the full amount, but it was a new concept to me at the time and I was more conservative with the amount. I more recently interviewed with a pre-series A company and they said that they'd…

How would you negotiate that in practice? Would it be reasonable to ask for it to be in your contract? How would you suggest wording it roughly? Sorry I'm inexperienced with this kind of thing and have no idea how I would go about negotiating for it.

I think for the most part you can't negotiate for this sort of thing, because most companies are not going to work up a one-off, custom equity comp agreement. Not just for you, someone they've just finished interviewing, seem to have some enthusiasm about, but ultimately they have only a vague idea of how you're going to perform or how long you're going to stick around. Either the company offers it, or they don't.

I think more companies offering it is maybe driven by feedback loops around recruiting (prospective employees asking for more and varied opportunities for compensation, and rejecting offers that don't include them). And also perhaps by employees just simply becoming educated about and talking about this stuff, with the sometimes-tacit understanding that they're going to be looking elsewhere for other employment opportunities if their employers don't give them more than just salary bumps and occasional equity grant refreshes.

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

#857

Post by kelnos »

Chilko wrote: post #798
extragood wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That policy was actually one of the major reasons I liked that company and stuck with them for so long. Their goal early on was to avoid raising money if at all possible, and they managed that for a long time by mostly being cash-flow positive/profitable. The trade off is slower, but sustainable growth. We hit an inflection point in the early pandemic where money was cheap and we had a ton of new customers coming in,…

> by mostly being cash-flow positive/profitable. The trade off is slower, but sustainable growth. As someone that is outside of the tech industry, the fact that this is seen as an abnormal approach seems quite ridiculous.

As someone inside the tech industry, I absolutely agree.

The problem is that new startups often don't have options here. Unless you're in a market where VCs are shy about funding new companies, if you don't take the VC cash and go into high-growth mode, someone else will, and they'll end up out-competing you, at least in the short term. (Long enough that you won't be able to remain solvent, at least.) So you either fail, or take the money and often get into a situation of doing not-particularly-sustainable things.

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

#858

Post by icedchai »

reducesuffering wrote: post #850
FreakLegion wrote: post #705

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most have voting control, subject to certain investor veto powers, after the A. Very few have it after the B.

Isn’t each round 10-20% to investors? Even in the worst case of Seed, A, and B at 20% each, founders still have 80% -> 64% -> 51% ? And in the best case it’s just one series A taking ~15%, thus founders still have 85%

It can get much worse. Companies can have multiple “seed” rounds. It may not be doing well enough for a real “A” round. The naming of the rounds doesn’t matter. Valuation at each round does. If your valuation goes lower from one round to the next (“down round”) you’ll give up more equity, diluting everyone else faster.

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

#859

Post by kelnos »

fragmede wrote: post #591
corry wrote: post #488

Three interesting part of the discussion: (1) The opportunity cost to the founder of taking early liquidity: 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…

to put it bluntly asf, you're being poor (and I'm being insensitive). what's $500k going to do for you if you come from a rich family? you already have your rent paid for until you die, and vacations paid for. all you have to do to do is put up with your annoying family, which isn't the worst if you've been through therapy. your mom or dad's abusive? if you've been through enough family therapy, that's not a problem.…

> what's $500k going to do for you if you come from a rich family?

Perhaps not much, but most people -- even most startup founders -- don't come from a rich family.

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

#860

Post by kelnos »

goalonetwo wrote: post #598

In my 20s I joined a couple startups as "early engineer" or "founding engineer". I quickly realized those are the absolute worst positions to be in. You take almost as much risk as the founders but almost none of the upside. One startup died, the other one sold for 100m$. Out of that I saw 400k$ as an exit. Not too bad but even with that exit I ended up making way less than if I joined a FAANG. In both cases the foun…

> Either you create/found a startup or it's not worth joining one as an employee. You have way more upside at a FAANG/pre-IPO mid-life startup that already found a great product market fit.

I'm glad you mention the pre-IPO mid-life startup and not solely trot out the usual "work for a FAANG instead and make $600k/yr out the gate" nonsense. There are quite a few pre-IPO mid-life (or even vaguely-but-not-super-early) startups out there that are doing well, growing more or less sustainably, will pay you a market-rate (or even above) base salary, and give you a solid equity package that has a much higher likelihood of being worth something than those early-stage startup options have. You might not make $600k/yr at a FAANG, but most people at a FAANG aren't making that, and many smart, talented people won't pass a FAANG interview anyway.

Post reply on HN