3 ms·
Very interesting comment. May I ask a quick clarifying question? When you say "the series-A guys are offering the same stock (roughly) as the series-D", what
by snowmaker 8y ago
Very interesting comment. May I ask a quick clarifying question?
When you say "the series-A guys are offering the same stock (roughly) as the series-D", what units are you comparing them in? Number of shares? Percentage of the company? Estimated $ value of the shares (and if so, how calculated)?
- kika 8y agoThe number of shares. One can argue that early startup shares are less diluted and thus comprise a bigger piece of the company, but the risk is disproportional to dilution. When evaluating an offer, you just multiply this number to the projected IPO price given the comparable (same industry, company size, etc) IPOs recently.
- snowmaker 8y agoFWIW, I wouldn't recommend using the number of shares as the benchmark for comparing offers (across any two companies, startups or otherwise). Actual share counts are quite arbitrary. It's common for startups that are going public to do a 10 to 1 stock split shortly beforehand. Using your algorithm, an offer from that company would 10x more valuable the day after the split! Much better would be to compare the expected value, by multiplying the ownership percentage by some estimate of the value of the company.
- kika 8y agoTrue. This metric is as good (or bad) as any else, a percentage of the company included. You can't predict dilution or stock split (the only startup I joined early enough to have the strike price of 11 cents which went IPO, did a _reverse_ stock split). But somehow the number of shares granted in a company of 20 ppl with stage-A money and 0 revenues is within 10% of the company with 3000 ppl and doing 300M in revenues. And also within 10% from the company with 200 ppl and 30M in _profits_. Go figure.