3 ms·
Not really. A liquidation preference is worth something, so if you really didn't want to give on, you could give up more equity. But as Fred Wilson once pointe
by byrneseyeview 16y ago
Not really. A liquidation preference is worth something, so if you really didn't want to give on, you could give up more equity.
But as Fred Wilson once pointed out, it's a great way to handle a situation where the founder thinks the company is worth way more than the VC does. If the founder is right, the VC owns less stock than they otherwise would have; if the VC is right, and the company is bought for a low valuation, the VC gets a higher percentage of the payout.
Essentially, a liquidation preference can give you "conditional equity"--the founders own, say, 50% of the company if it's sold for a small amount, and 80% if it's sold for a large amount.
- adw 16y agoI think you'd find a broad consensus among founders and VCs that 1x non-participating is pretty much entirely fair (and standard!) the whole time. Other pref structures often mean that either the VC had the upper hand in negotiations or that there's a big divide in valuation to cross.