5 ms·

Ask HN: Is startup equity just snake oil?

21 points by Spiritus 11y ago

Is equity just an excuse for start-ups to motivate lower salaries and bad work hours, which in the end don't yield much anyway?

rudimk 11y ago
No, not always. It's something a lot of startups misuse. But I wouldn't say that's how everybody does it. I know some startups that offer equity with a slight pay cut, just to gauge your motivation, and bump up your pay soon after.
cballard 11y ago
Yes. First of all, they'll probably just tell you how many shares you get. So, you don't even know what percentage of the total you have! But even if they did tell you, they won't show you the cap table, so there's no way to even evaluate the worth, since you can't see how much the investors are going to be paid out first. And even if you did know that, the board can just print more shares and make yours irrelevant anyways, so you still can't tell what they're worth. So, assume they're worthless.
- tptacek 11y ago
  This used to be a pretty common story, but I haven't heard it in awhile. Don't accept offers that don't give you enough information to value your shares, unless equity isn't a significant part of your compensation.
  - x0x0 11y ago
    It happened to me early this year, and they were super-upset when I turned them down. An A-round startup (with investment from a16z!) that wouldn't share the denominator in the options package... I guess it takes all types. Funny enough, they're still hiring for the role.
juhq 11y ago
The thing is, it's all upside down. If a startup wants to get a experienced person to the team, they should offer more salary and then some options/shares instead of lower salary and possibility of options. I really don't understand why an experienced person would take a pay cut.
relaunched 11y ago
It's less snake oil as it is an inheritance from a long, lost relation. Stock isn't something you can bank on, unless the company is knocking on the door of an IPO and then you are probably looking at RSUs anyway. I'm gonna do some math that probably doesn't apply to a new grad, but certainly could apply to an experienced SE/SWE/etc. Look at it this way, if you are making $175k, with a 15% bonus and $55k of vesting stock at Google ("Alphabet"). Let's just assume the stock doesn't fluctuate over the course of the year. We'll call your total comp $255k real money (forgoing 401k and other benefits for simplicity). Now, you join a well-funded seed startup. They pay you $150 (even in these crazy times this is a high startup figure). Congratulations! You just became an investor. I'll save you the spiel about paying for a better environment, accelerated learning, purpose, etc...You have invested 105k a year, in exchange for .1-.25 percent of the company, if it's still a pretty small startup. Oh yeah, and year one's money gets paid mostly towards your stock cliff; you paid to accrue the first years stock until the end of the year (if you make it to the end of the year). If you leave in month 11 you get nothing. However, at month 12 you get the stock from year one, then each month you earn 1/48 of your total equity stake. A few more simplifying assumptions. Let's say your annual adjustments at BigCo and your annual adjustments at startup are equal, which they won't be. Also, there's no opportunity cost. Next year you pay that $105k again. Then, the company raises a few rounds of capital, over the next 5 years. All in all you've been at the company for 7 years and paid $735k for (let's call it) .1% of a company that was worth $5 million post at the time. But, you've been diluted 30%, 20%, 15% and 7% in subsequent rounds, and then maybe re-upped a little along the way. You have 3 times your initial grant worth of stock, because you were really good at your job, so now you own .000189 % of the company. If the company has a $500 million dollar exit, with no preferences, you get $94,500. But, with all the rounds you raised, $500 million is probably gonna trigger a liquidation preferences. Let's say it took $150 million VC money to get your exit. Well, you get $66,150. Damnit... Well, that doesn't seem worth it. How big does the company have to get to make it worth it? Well, I haven't heard of any $10,000,000,000 acquisitions. So, let's say you IPO and after your lockup period, you leave the company and sell all your stock. You'll have a tax advantageous $1.89 million. Off all the startups you hear about, and many you don't, how many $10,000,000,000 exits have you heard about? And what is that risk factor worth? Now, why do people do startups? Well, let's say your startup is Facebook. After your lockup period, you had a market cap of ~$100,000,000,000. Your .1% is now worth $18.9 million. Or if you had an original .25%, $47.25. I hope you get the point.
AureliaDalek 11y ago
Think of them like lottery tickets. Yes, they could be worth millions of dollars, but the chance of that happening is very, very slim. The tradeoff for the bad hours/pay is that you'll get more autonomy in your work and the ability to really influence the product. To me, this is why you should work for a startup. Certainly not for the stock options.
- p4wnc6 11y ago
  In most start-ups, you do not get much autonomy and you are also heavily prevented from influencing the product. In the rare cases where you can "influence" the product, you're still expected to simply implement the ideas of others for a long, long time, as you would be expected to do anywhere, before you get the chance to add your own ideas to the mix (if you ever do). You also need to factor in that start-ups pay generally a below-market wage, and often do not have benefits on par with other employment options. For a long time, the standard argument has been that you should view the expected payoff of the equity as a form of offsetting compensation. If your salary is X-thousand below market, but under average-case circumstances your equity is worth Y-thousand-per-year, and Y == X, then, in theory, you should view the offer as exactly a "market" pay rate. Of course there are also effects of being forced to defer compensation to the future, deal with tax implications, and potentially also be compensated for risk of failure, and so forth, so Y should actually have to be significantly above X, but the general idea is the same. If you view the equity as lottery tickets (and I agree that you should), but you also accept a below market pay rate, or bad benefits (like an onerous regular premium for insurance, or the absence of a company matched 401(k), or extreme working hours, and so on), then you are basically doing nothing but accepting a job for below-market pay, without getting a single thing as a compensating benefit in return. You are literally doing nothing but devaluing your own labor and by sending the market signal that employers are capable of hiring you like this, you are also contributing to driving the price of labor in your field down overall too, which could hurt your peers and your future self. There are often further negatives about start-ups too. For one, they often try to cram you into low-productivity open-plan offices, but then turn around and try to defend it with buzzwords about teamwork and company culture. In some start-ups, your visible enthusiasm for the arbitrary workplace choices of the management is also a component of how you are evaluated. If you're merely neutral about something like, say, dog-friendly offices or frequent alcohol-focused gatherings, as opposed to being visibily excited about them, this often is held against you when it comes time for raises or promotions or, more often, layoffs. Many start-ups don't really think for themselves either. They use management processes like Agile/Scrum because it gives management a convenient fiction that the company's development work can be commoditized, and that they can hot-swap new employees in at any time. They are notorious about not doing proper capacity planning or planning around an engineer's specialties. You might have been hired because you're great at front-end work and then end up spending 100% of your time migrating customer data from MySQL to Postgres. Or you might be a mathematics / statistics worker and spend all your time making web applications in Django. It will all be covered by catch-all excuses about the company pivoting or you needing to wear lots of hats or some bullshit, and if you raise any discontent over how much disrespect is being shown for your specialty or aptitudes, it will be ignored or punished. And after all of this, the best case scenario, which is exponentially unlikely, is that you'll make a small amount of money from your stock options (assuming you saved enough from your below-market salary to actually exercise them), which still won't be enough to buy a house in the Bay Area. I'm not saying start-ups are tautologically bad places to work. It would be great if at least some of them began acting as responsible employers. But, you really need to deeply consider a lot of this stuff before choosing to work for a start-up, and really have a clear understanding of what other benefit you are getting (maybe your significant other lives near the start-up and you don't need money or respect at work?). The fact that so many people accept these bad working conditions is our own fault, as a community of developers, and until more engineers (especially younger ones) start to stick up for themselves by boycotting jobs that infantilize them, we have only ourselves to blame for the horrendous working conditions we're made to accept.
forgottenpass 11y ago
Is equity just an excuse for start-ups to motivate lower salaries and bad work hours, which in the end don't yield much anyway? Pretty much. Unless you have your lawyer (not a lawyer, your lawyer) tell you otherwise assume equity as compensation is worthless. There are times and places where equity isn't meaningless, but that's not at Valley tech startups. There it's mostly used to mislead impressionable youths that haven't been burned yet.
mesozoic 11y ago
Pretty much. Would you work as hard or take as much of a paycut if you got virtual lottery tickets instead (lottery tickets that even if you win may not pay out since VCs have a higher priority stake in them)
brianwawok 11y ago
If you make your own company and get 40% of the equity or whatever.. not snake oil at all! If you join a late stage startup and get a good salary and a few shares... not snake oil, but not going to be life changing. Base your decision on the salary and what you will be working on. All the people in the middle offering you 50% of market pay plus 1% of a small company? Ya that is pretty much a scam to get cheap labor, don't fall for it.
- bpchaps 11y ago
  BJ&JG was a bit different, though. ;) It's hard to say that two guys who were new to management at the time are entirely representative of the entire small company market. Inexperienced small company market, sure, but not the market as a whole. Also, because real life slipping into HN - why the heck did your sound script pipe a python regex matcher's stdout to perl to have it immediately go directly to stdout for another pipe pick it up?! The context switches... the p&l impacting context switches.... ;)
poof131 11y ago
Yes, more than changing the world, fake equity is what start ups are all about. The goal is to take the fake equity and try to make it real. As an example, a friend built a prototype in a couple months and with the help of someone else, he was able to raise a $1M note at a $10M cap. With 50% of the company he now has $4.5M in equity. But it’s all imaginary. Without an exit it means nothing. Employees are the ones who need to watch out for this, because the founders turn around and try to pretend the equity is real. An offer of $200k of this fake equity isn’t really $200k. And for you to ‘get rich’ and 10x your $200k, you will need to 10x the founders $4.5M of fake equity. All the founders need to do is see an exit and they are rich since the initial seed round gives them millions. So don’t worry about $ numbers, just the percent of the company. If it is early, understand the cap table and fight for your fair share. And don’t stop fighting, especially if you are adding value. Remember the founders got millions of ‘fake equity’, they can and should share. Don’t forget that the ebullient founders see a payday on most any exit whereas you won’t. I like the advice that you are either learning or earning, and if you aren’t founding you most likely are learning. Also, don’t let people talk you far below market salary since you aren’t just giving up big company salary, but also bonus and stock. Most of all though, you need to trust the founders since it’s easy for them to screw you and easy for them to screw everyone if they don’t make the right moves. Even if you build a good product and get customers, if there are bad ratchet clauses everyone but the investors will get screwed. This is geared more toward early stage. For later stage you aren’t going to see the cap table or anything else. The main thing for mid to late stages is growth: users, customers, and revenue. You are stepping on to a rocket ship priced for perfection, if it goes off trajectory your equity is going to be worthless, so don’t feel obliged to stay and help out of charity. At this point the founders have likely already made millions, the senior employees are probably going to be okay, but the noobs are going to get burned. YC and others have done a lot to help founders. Unfortunately, no one has done much to help employees. So pay attention and do your best to find people you trust. Remember, founders have every incentive to sell you the golden dream, since it’s likely to be golden for them.
staunch 11y ago
I'd compare it to being part of a team in a poker tournament. You walk away with a share of the winnings or you walk away with nothing.
ThrustVectoring 11y ago
I only ever value equity in terms of "percentage of the founder's share". That is, if it isn't the same kind of thing as what the founders have, then there isn't anyone negotiating on your side to keep it valuable, so it's probably not worth anything. The golden question is "if you get an exit that makes you $10m, how much money does that mean for me?"
bobby_9x 11y ago
There are many issues with getting equity when you are not investing money: 1) rounds of investments will dilute your shares 2) you have no control over the company and are now in the precarious position where the situation could get really bad, but you don't want to leave because you don't want to lose your shares (I've been there) 3) If the company is overvalued at some point, takes an investment, and then sells for less than that value, the investors will get paid back first (further reducing your chances at getting a payout). Is it snake oil? Not necessarily, but it's a huge risk and you shouldn't think of it as your path to riches.
lacker 11y ago
No, that is too simplistic. When you get a job offer with an equity component, you should be able to estimate its value. Figure out what you think the company is worth, figure out what % of the company you own, and multiply those two numbers together. I have had friends get job offers where the equity component was worth less than $1000, and I have had friends get job offers where the equity component exceeded the salary component. It really just depends on the startup. So don't just dismiss the equity component as worthless without digging into it a bit more.
gesman 11y ago
It's an effort to sell you expensive lottery ticket. You may or may not choose to play this game but odds are not in your favor. My suggestion is to postpone options/equity discussion up until after the salary discussion is settled. Let it be icing on the cake rather than replacement for the part of the cake.

21 points by Spiritus 11y ago

Is equity just an excuse for start-ups to motivate lower salaries and bad work hours, which in the end don't yield much anyway?

rudimk 11y ago

No, not always. It's something a lot of startups misuse. But I wouldn't say that's how everybody does it. I know some startups that offer equity with a slight pay cut, just to gauge your motivation, and bump up your pay soon after.

cballard 11y ago

Yes. First of all, they'll probably just tell you how many shares you get. So, you don't even know what percentage of the total you have! But even if they did tell you, they won't show you the cap table, so there's no way to even evaluate the worth, since you can't see how much the investors are going to be paid out first. And even if you did know that, the board can just print more shares and make yours irrelevant anyways, so you still can't tell what they're worth. So, assume they're worthless.

tptacek 11y ago
This used to be a pretty common story, but I haven't heard it in awhile. Don't accept offers that don't give you enough information to value your shares, unless equity isn't a significant part of your compensation.
- x0x0 11y ago
  It happened to me early this year, and they were super-upset when I turned them down. An A-round startup (with investment from a16z!) that wouldn't share the denominator in the options package... I guess it takes all types. Funny enough, they're still hiring for the role.

juhq 11y ago

The thing is, it's all upside down. If a startup wants to get a experienced person to the team, they should offer more salary and then some options/shares instead of lower salary and possibility of options. I really don't understand why an experienced person would take a pay cut.

relaunched 11y ago

It's less snake oil as it is an inheritance from a long, lost relation. Stock isn't something you can bank on, unless the company is knocking on the door of an IPO and then you are probably looking at RSUs anyway. I'm gonna do some math that probably doesn't apply to a new grad, but certainly could apply to an experienced SE/SWE/etc. Look at it this way, if you are making $175k, with a 15% bonus and $55k of vesting stock at Google ("Alphabet"). Let's just assume the stock doesn't fluctuate over the course of the year. We'll call your total comp $255k real money (forgoing 401k and other benefits for simplicity). Now, you join a well-funded seed startup. They pay you $150 (even in these crazy times this is a high startup figure). Congratulations! You just became an investor. I'll save you the spiel about paying for a better environment, accelerated learning, purpose, etc...You have invested 105k a year, in exchange for .1-.25 percent of the company, if it's still a pretty small startup. Oh yeah, and year one's money gets paid mostly towards your stock cliff; you paid to accrue the first years stock until the end of the year (if you make it to the end of the year). If you leave in month 11 you get nothing. However, at month 12 you get the stock from year one, then each month you earn 1/48 of your total equity stake. A few more simplifying assumptions. Let's say your annual adjustments at BigCo and your annual adjustments at startup are equal, which they won't be. Also, there's no opportunity cost. Next year you pay that $105k again. Then, the company raises a few rounds of capital, over the next 5 years. All in all you've been at the company for 7 years and paid $735k for (let's call it) .1% of a company that was worth $5 million post at the time. But, you've been diluted 30%, 20%, 15% and 7% in subsequent rounds, and then maybe re-upped a little along the way. You have 3 times your initial grant worth of stock, because you were really good at your job, so now you own .000189 % of the company. If the company has a $500 million dollar exit, with no preferences, you get $94,500. But, with all the rounds you raised, $500 million is probably gonna trigger a liquidation preferences. Let's say it took $150 million VC money to get your exit. Well, you get $66,150. Damnit... Well, that doesn't seem worth it. How big does the company have to get to make it worth it? Well, I haven't heard of any $10,000,000,000 acquisitions. So, let's say you IPO and after your lockup period, you leave the company and sell all your stock. You'll have a tax advantageous $1.89 million. Off all the startups you hear about, and many you don't, how many $10,000,000,000 exits have you heard about? And what is that risk factor worth? Now, why do people do startups? Well, let's say your startup is Facebook. After your lockup period, you had a market cap of ~$100,000,000,000. Your .1% is now worth $18.9 million. Or if you had an original .25%, $47.25. I hope you get the point.

AureliaDalek 11y ago

Think of them like lottery tickets. Yes, they could be worth millions of dollars, but the chance of that happening is very, very slim. The tradeoff for the bad hours/pay is that you'll get more autonomy in your work and the ability to really influence the product. To me, this is why you should work for a startup. Certainly not for the stock options.

p4wnc6 11y ago
In most start-ups, you do not get much autonomy and you are also heavily prevented from influencing the product. In the rare cases where you can "influence" the product, you're still expected to simply implement the ideas of others for a long, long time, as you would be expected to do anywhere, before you get the chance to add your own ideas to the mix (if you ever do). You also need to factor in that start-ups pay generally a below-market wage, and often do not have benefits on par with other employment options. For a long time, the standard argument has been that you should view the expected payoff of the equity as a form of offsetting compensation. If your salary is X-thousand below market, but under average-case circumstances your equity is worth Y-thousand-per-year, and Y == X, then, in theory, you should view the offer as exactly a "market" pay rate. Of course there are also effects of being forced to defer compensation to the future, deal with tax implications, and potentially also be compensated for risk of failure, and so forth, so Y should actually have to be significantly above X, but the general idea is the same. If you view the equity as lottery tickets (and I agree that you should), but you also accept a below market pay rate, or bad benefits (like an onerous regular premium for insurance, or the absence of a company matched 401(k), or extreme working hours, and so on), then you are basically doing nothing but accepting a job for below-market pay, without getting a single thing as a compensating benefit in return. You are literally doing nothing but devaluing your own labor and by sending the market signal that employers are capable of hiring you like this, you are also contributing to driving the price of labor in your field down overall too, which could hurt your peers and your future self. There are often further negatives about start-ups too. For one, they often try to cram you into low-productivity open-plan offices, but then turn around and try to defend it with buzzwords about teamwork and company culture. In some start-ups, your visible enthusiasm for the arbitrary workplace choices of the management is also a component of how you are evaluated. If you're merely neutral about something like, say, dog-friendly offices or frequent alcohol-focused gatherings, as opposed to being visibily excited about them, this often is held against you when it comes time for raises or promotions or, more often, layoffs. Many start-ups don't really think for themselves either. They use management processes like Agile/Scrum because it gives management a convenient fiction that the company's development work can be commoditized, and that they can hot-swap new employees in at any time. They are notorious about not doing proper capacity planning or planning around an engineer's specialties. You might have been hired because you're great at front-end work and then end up spending 100% of your time migrating customer data from MySQL to Postgres. Or you might be a mathematics / statistics worker and spend all your time making web applications in Django. It will all be covered by catch-all excuses about the company pivoting or you needing to wear lots of hats or some bullshit, and if you raise any discontent over how much disrespect is being shown for your specialty or aptitudes, it will be ignored or punished. And after all of this, the best case scenario, which is exponentially unlikely, is that you'll make a small amount of money from your stock options (assuming you saved enough from your below-market salary to actually exercise them), which still won't be enough to buy a house in the Bay Area. I'm not saying start-ups are tautologically bad places to work. It would be great if at least some of them began acting as responsible employers. But, you really need to deeply consider a lot of this stuff before choosing to work for a start-up, and really have a clear understanding of what other benefit you are getting (maybe your significant other lives near the start-up and you don't need money or respect at work?). The fact that so many people accept these bad working conditions is our own fault, as a community of developers, and until more engineers (especially younger ones) start to stick up for themselves by boycotting jobs that infantilize them, we have only ourselves to blame for the horrendous working conditions we're made to accept.

forgottenpass 11y ago

Is equity just an excuse for start-ups to motivate lower salaries and bad work hours, which in the end don't yield much anyway? Pretty much. Unless you have your lawyer (not a lawyer, your lawyer) tell you otherwise assume equity as compensation is worthless. There are times and places where equity isn't meaningless, but that's not at Valley tech startups. There it's mostly used to mislead impressionable youths that haven't been burned yet.

mesozoic 11y ago

Pretty much. Would you work as hard or take as much of a paycut if you got virtual lottery tickets instead (lottery tickets that even if you win may not pay out since VCs have a higher priority stake in them)

brianwawok 11y ago

If you make your own company and get 40% of the equity or whatever.. not snake oil at all! If you join a late stage startup and get a good salary and a few shares... not snake oil, but not going to be life changing. Base your decision on the salary and what you will be working on. All the people in the middle offering you 50% of market pay plus 1% of a small company? Ya that is pretty much a scam to get cheap labor, don't fall for it.

bpchaps 11y ago
BJ&JG was a bit different, though. ;) It's hard to say that two guys who were new to management at the time are entirely representative of the entire small company market. Inexperienced small company market, sure, but not the market as a whole. Also, because real life slipping into HN - why the heck did your sound script pipe a python regex matcher's stdout to perl to have it immediately go directly to stdout for another pipe pick it up?! The context switches... the p&l impacting context switches.... ;)

poof131 11y ago

Yes, more than changing the world, fake equity is what start ups are all about. The goal is to take the fake equity and try to make it real. As an example, a friend built a prototype in a couple months and with the help of someone else, he was able to raise a $1M note at a $10M cap. With 50% of the company he now has $4.5M in equity. But it’s all imaginary. Without an exit it means nothing. Employees are the ones who need to watch out for this, because the founders turn around and try to pretend the equity is real. An offer of $200k of this fake equity isn’t really $200k. And for you to ‘get rich’ and 10x your $200k, you will need to 10x the founders $4.5M of fake equity. All the founders need to do is see an exit and they are rich since the initial seed round gives them millions. So don’t worry about $ numbers, just the percent of the company. If it is early, understand the cap table and fight for your fair share. And don’t stop fighting, especially if you are adding value. Remember the founders got millions of ‘fake equity’, they can and should share. Don’t forget that the ebullient founders see a payday on most any exit whereas you won’t. I like the advice that you are either learning or earning, and if you aren’t founding you most likely are learning. Also, don’t let people talk you far below market salary since you aren’t just giving up big company salary, but also bonus and stock. Most of all though, you need to trust the founders since it’s easy for them to screw you and easy for them to screw everyone if they don’t make the right moves. Even if you build a good product and get customers, if there are bad ratchet clauses everyone but the investors will get screwed. This is geared more toward early stage. For later stage you aren’t going to see the cap table or anything else. The main thing for mid to late stages is growth: users, customers, and revenue. You are stepping on to a rocket ship priced for perfection, if it goes off trajectory your equity is going to be worthless, so don’t feel obliged to stay and help out of charity. At this point the founders have likely already made millions, the senior employees are probably going to be okay, but the noobs are going to get burned. YC and others have done a lot to help founders. Unfortunately, no one has done much to help employees. So pay attention and do your best to find people you trust. Remember, founders have every incentive to sell you the golden dream, since it’s likely to be golden for them.

staunch 11y ago

I'd compare it to being part of a team in a poker tournament. You walk away with a share of the winnings or you walk away with nothing.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago

I only ever value equity in terms of "percentage of the founder's share". That is, if it isn't the same kind of thing as what the founders have, then there isn't anyone negotiating on your side to keep it valuable, so it's probably not worth anything. The golden question is "if you get an exit that makes you $10m, how much money does that mean for me?"

bobby_9x 11y ago

There are many issues with getting equity when you are not investing money: 1) rounds of investments will dilute your shares 2) you have no control over the company and are now in the precarious position where the situation could get really bad, but you don't want to leave because you don't want to lose your shares (I've been there) 3) If the company is overvalued at some point, takes an investment, and then sells for less than that value, the investors will get paid back first (further reducing your chances at getting a payout). Is it snake oil? Not necessarily, but it's a huge risk and you shouldn't think of it as your path to riches.

lacker 11y ago

No, that is too simplistic. When you get a job offer with an equity component, you should be able to estimate its value. Figure out what you think the company is worth, figure out what % of the company you own, and multiply those two numbers together. I have had friends get job offers where the equity component was worth less than $1000, and I have had friends get job offers where the equity component exceeded the salary component. It really just depends on the startup. So don't just dismiss the equity component as worthless without digging into it a bit more.

gesman 11y ago

It's an effort to sell you expensive lottery ticket. You may or may not choose to play this game but odds are not in your favor. My suggestion is to postpone options/equity discussion up until after the salary discussion is settled. Let it be icing on the cake rather than replacement for the part of the cake.