3 ms·

If dilution is a non issue then why do professional venture investors demand anti dilution clauses?

harryh 9y ago
Professional investors generally get pro rata rights which allows them to buy more stock in later rounds. They do this because they want the ability to buy more shares in companies that are succeeding. They don't get magic stock that magically doesn't get diluted.
- sroussey 9y ago
  Ratchets are a thing, far less common in the valley in the last decade than the decade before, particularly at earlier stages. Founders can put them in as well. Don't forget warrants as part of a deal too.
- PeterFBell 9y ago
  They used to! Ask anyone who was involved in startups around 200-2002 about the full-ratchet anti-dilution provisions many investors demanded and received. Not fun for anyone else in a down round . . .
  - jhall1468 9y ago
    Down-rounds were huge back then, regardless weighted average was still the more common way of doing things, even in the early 2000s. Often times, these days, startups are putting pay to play provisions in, so even the weighted average ratchet requires them to keep investing in order to receive their anti-dilution. Honestly, unless a startup has SERIOUS capital problems, an anti-dilution isn't going to make it's way into a share purchase, so the companies that are still seeing this (and the ones from the early 2000s) weren't in incredible shape to begin with.
- Pyxl101 9y ago
  Why shouldn't employees also demand, and also be given, the right to buy more shares in subsequent funding rounds? If I was going to work at a company for X% ownership, I'd sure expect to have the right to invest my own money to preserve my stake in a funding round and avoid dilution. Many employees might not exercise this privilege, since it would require putting (potentially a lot of) cash back into the company, but why aren't they given the choice? I also might expect to receive the same liquidation preference on any shares purchased in cash this way. I'm not sure I could be comfortable working for a startup without pro rata rights and relatively full knowledge of the cap table and preferences. That's probably why I'm not working at a startup.
  - harryh 9y ago
    1) It would generally be a poor investment choice for an employee to invest their savings in a startup that they were actively working for. Startup employees are already over-invested in their company from a diversification perspective. 2) The majority of startup employees are unlikely to have the cash on hand to make that kind of investment. Because of #1 and #2 this isn't something that most employees would care about so it's not part of any standard compensation package. It's possible that an employee could negotiate for such a provision though. The fact that you would want a pro rata right to work at a startup does make you fairly unusual and I agree goes to explain why you have chosen other career options.

Professional investors generally get pro rata rights which allows them to buy more stock in later rounds. They do this because they want the ability to buy more shares in companies that are succeeding. They don't get magic stock that magically doesn't get diluted.

sroussey 9y ago
Ratchets are a thing, far less common in the valley in the last decade than the decade before, particularly at earlier stages. Founders can put them in as well. Don't forget warrants as part of a deal too.
PeterFBell 9y ago
They used to! Ask anyone who was involved in startups around 200-2002 about the full-ratchet anti-dilution provisions many investors demanded and received. Not fun for anyone else in a down round . . .
- jhall1468 9y ago
  Down-rounds were huge back then, regardless weighted average was still the more common way of doing things, even in the early 2000s. Often times, these days, startups are putting pay to play provisions in, so even the weighted average ratchet requires them to keep investing in order to receive their anti-dilution. Honestly, unless a startup has SERIOUS capital problems, an anti-dilution isn't going to make it's way into a share purchase, so the companies that are still seeing this (and the ones from the early 2000s) weren't in incredible shape to begin with.
Pyxl101 9y ago
Why shouldn't employees also demand, and also be given, the right to buy more shares in subsequent funding rounds? If I was going to work at a company for X% ownership, I'd sure expect to have the right to invest my own money to preserve my stake in a funding round and avoid dilution. Many employees might not exercise this privilege, since it would require putting (potentially a lot of) cash back into the company, but why aren't they given the choice? I also might expect to receive the same liquidation preference on any shares purchased in cash this way. I'm not sure I could be comfortable working for a startup without pro rata rights and relatively full knowledge of the cap table and preferences. That's probably why I'm not working at a startup.
- harryh 9y ago
  1) It would generally be a poor investment choice for an employee to invest their savings in a startup that they were actively working for. Startup employees are already over-invested in their company from a diversification perspective. 2) The majority of startup employees are unlikely to have the cash on hand to make that kind of investment. Because of #1 and #2 this isn't something that most employees would care about so it's not part of any standard compensation package. It's possible that an employee could negotiate for such a provision though. The fact that you would want a pro rata right to work at a startup does make you fairly unusual and I agree goes to explain why you have chosen other career options.