4 ms·

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't see how that would reduce anyones need to fundraise. No one can wait around 10 years for others in their class to become

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't see how that would reduce anyones need to fundraise. No one can wait around 10 years for others in their class to become liquid to fund their company.

njarboe 9y ago
If you know you are a likely to get between $100k and $1m in ten years, then there is a lot less financial risk of not putting any money in a 401k for a few years when creating a startup that eventually fails. I think this is a really cool idea. It would also will bind the group together even more (if you think that is a good thing).
- chrishacken 9y ago
  Does anyone running a startup actually put money in a 401k? (Serious question.) I do not, nor do I know anyone else who does. I also don't see how that's enough money to tip the scale.
  - nwenzel 9y ago
    I do. So do my cofounder and many of our employees. We made the 401k available around 15 employees (I think). The tax savings of the 401k offsets the cost of providing the 401k, so its basically free-ish to offer... without matching. For reference, we started offering the 401k before our A round. At that point, we had raised $2M and were still under $1M ARR run rate. Based in the Bay Area. I don’t get the narrative that startups pay very little or don’t offer any benefits. We pay competitive comp and offer good benefits to get great people. We’re an enterprise SaaS company, so maybe pre-revenue or consumer or hit-based companies are different. But even our first employee was well compensated. Though at that point, my cofounder and I were paying ourselves well below market and were living off savings.
    - saryant 9y ago
      I worked for a Techstars company that started offering a 401k at 1 employee (me). One of the founders told me it really wasn’t that expensive.
      - nwenzel 9y ago
        The 401k isn’t expensive. Especially with newer startups offering payroll and 401k. Matching. That’s expensive.
    - chrishacken 9y ago
      I was thinking more along the lines of solo-founders. Obviously if you can afford to pay employees, you can afford a 401k. Which brings me back to the fact that you probably still need money to pay employees; which generally means you still need funding unless you're profitable very early on. We're entirely bootstrapped, but we provide a recurring service and it's taken me 2 years to hire our first employee. I don't think most companies can wait 2 years after launching to hire an employee (We couldn't even.. I had to bring in short-term help on numerous occasions).
      - nwenzel 9y ago
        First, huge respect for bootstrapping. My co-founder and I ran a bootstrapped company together for over a decade. Skipped our own paychecks three times to ensure we made payroll for our team. But I’m sure you have your own stories just like that. Again, HUGE respect to you and everyone that operates without a backstop. We went just over two years in our venture-backed company before hiring anyone. Built the business to nearly $200k ARR. Everyone we told was amazed. But if 2 people can’t operate a business with only $200k top line, you don’t need a complex financial model to know that your economics aren’t where they need to be. So, yes, you need to have revenues and cash before you can hire and pay salaries. 401k is only a little further out than that.
jaggederest 9y ago
I might be confused, but I thought it was a fund composed of a percentage of all YC companies, not just the current batch. So past batches would be liquid and able to return value to support current batches. This is, of course, largely how firms trading with their own money work, but not historically how VC firms operate.

Maybe I'm missing something. I don't see how that would reduce anyones need to fundraise. No one can wait around 10 years for others in their class to become liquid to fund their company.

njarboe 9y ago

If you know you are a likely to get between $100k and $1m in ten years, then there is a lot less financial risk of not putting any money in a 401k for a few years when creating a startup that eventually fails. I think this is a really cool idea. It would also will bind the group together even more (if you think that is a good thing).

chrishacken 9y ago
Does anyone running a startup actually put money in a 401k? (Serious question.) I do not, nor do I know anyone else who does. I also don't see how that's enough money to tip the scale.
- nwenzel 9y ago
  I do. So do my cofounder and many of our employees. We made the 401k available around 15 employees (I think). The tax savings of the 401k offsets the cost of providing the 401k, so its basically free-ish to offer... without matching. For reference, we started offering the 401k before our A round. At that point, we had raised $2M and were still under $1M ARR run rate. Based in the Bay Area. I don’t get the narrative that startups pay very little or don’t offer any benefits. We pay competitive comp and offer good benefits to get great people. We’re an enterprise SaaS company, so maybe pre-revenue or consumer or hit-based companies are different. But even our first employee was well compensated. Though at that point, my cofounder and I were paying ourselves well below market and were living off savings.
  - saryant 9y ago
    I worked for a Techstars company that started offering a 401k at 1 employee (me). One of the founders told me it really wasn’t that expensive.
    - nwenzel 9y ago
      The 401k isn’t expensive. Especially with newer startups offering payroll and 401k. Matching. That’s expensive.
  - chrishacken 9y ago
    I was thinking more along the lines of solo-founders. Obviously if you can afford to pay employees, you can afford a 401k. Which brings me back to the fact that you probably still need money to pay employees; which generally means you still need funding unless you're profitable very early on. We're entirely bootstrapped, but we provide a recurring service and it's taken me 2 years to hire our first employee. I don't think most companies can wait 2 years after launching to hire an employee (We couldn't even.. I had to bring in short-term help on numerous occasions).
    - nwenzel 9y ago
      First, huge respect for bootstrapping. My co-founder and I ran a bootstrapped company together for over a decade. Skipped our own paychecks three times to ensure we made payroll for our team. But I’m sure you have your own stories just like that. Again, HUGE respect to you and everyone that operates without a backstop. We went just over two years in our venture-backed company before hiring anyone. Built the business to nearly $200k ARR. Everyone we told was amazed. But if 2 people can’t operate a business with only $200k top line, you don’t need a complex financial model to know that your economics aren’t where they need to be. So, yes, you need to have revenues and cash before you can hire and pay salaries. 401k is only a little further out than that.

jaggederest 9y ago

I might be confused, but I thought it was a fund composed of a percentage of all YC companies, not just the current batch. So past batches would be liquid and able to return value to support current batches. This is, of course, largely how firms trading with their own money work, but not historically how VC firms operate.