4 ms·

What you are saying is true, but at least in theory you don't lose any 'value', because the money raised makes the company worth more. It's like going from 50%

What you are saying is true, but at least in theory you don't lose any 'value', because the money raised makes the company worth more. It's like going from 50% of a $1m company to 25% of a $2m company. Of course in real life things are much more complicated. And, if I was a cynic, I'd say they are purposely complicated in an effort to screw people over.

shiblukhan 7y ago
There are a number of additional factors not modeled here that affect real world decision making. First, most option grants revert ownership to the company if not exercised within 90 days of leaving the company. If the company is doing well, it only makes sense to leave if you can exercise. But the problem with exercising is that there can be enormous AMT tax liability if the company is doing well and the valuation has gone up substantially. For early employees, the taxes can easily be 10-20x the exercise cost or more. But since the stock is illiquid, there is no market for selling some of the stock to cover this liability. If you front the taxes with your own money (or worse, a loan) you are now in a position of enormous risk. If the company falters or collapses, your downside is huge and you can be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
harlanji 7y ago
Further, options come from a pool of stock that has last priority for cashing out. Preferred stock holders will get all value first, meaning an exit for less than the issued stock value will leave options holders empty handed. Sorry if I mixed up any important words, I’ve been out of the game for a couple of years.
wolco 7y ago
In real life. The founders and angel shares do not delute and your percentage goes down each round. If your lucky they are worth the same.
- spullara 7y ago
  Founder and angel shares absolutely dilute with additional rounds of funding unless you have provisions that are very rare in term sheets and founder agreements.
  - coderheed 7y ago
    Pro rata [1] is pretty standard [edit: at least in early stage startups], so investors typically have the option to maintain their level of ownership by putting money into the round. Everyone else gets diluted. I think in practice investors only get diluted if they actually want to. I'm not sure how often pro rata is extended to founders, but I would guess it's pretty common. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/how-pro-rata-works-in-venture-capital-deals/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/how-pro-rata-works-in-vent...
    - spullara 7y ago
      It is not common that founders get pro-rata rights.
rrix2 7y ago
through dilution "you'll pretty much be set to the original value" after each funding round is what the OP said. they're purposely complicated, and recruiters and VCs will take advantage of people who don't know how to do the math or reason about the amount of value extraction they're capable of, telling folks "oh this stock could be worth 100x of what is now"
munchbunny 7y ago
Two ways this happens are liquidation preference and "participation". In both cases (they work differently but mean similar downsides for employee stock), your stake's value becomes conditional on a best case scenario exit and investors in practice gain more ownership than the numbers immediately reveal. If the company fails, all that means nothing. If the company goes big, it won't matter. But in the most likely exit case where the company sells for less than everyone was hoping, now you get into the interesting territory where the investors might make their 1.5x return before you see a cent. It's not that founders don't understand this. It's that founders end up taking these conditions when they're low on negotiation leverage and choose between that and running out of funding, so it's an understandable decision. However, they also avoid talking about it unless forced to because it changes how you will value your stock, which changes how attractive your offer or current compensation is. As a rule I ask about it when I talk to startups about job offers.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

shiblukhan 7y ago

There are a number of additional factors not modeled here that affect real world decision making. First, most option grants revert ownership to the company if not exercised within 90 days of leaving the company. If the company is doing well, it only makes sense to leave if you can exercise. But the problem with exercising is that there can be enormous AMT tax liability if the company is doing well and the valuation has gone up substantially. For early employees, the taxes can easily be 10-20x the exercise cost or more. But since the stock is illiquid, there is no market for selling some of the stock to cover this liability. If you front the taxes with your own money (or worse, a loan) you are now in a position of enormous risk. If the company falters or collapses, your downside is huge and you can be hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

harlanji 7y ago

Further, options come from a pool of stock that has last priority for cashing out. Preferred stock holders will get all value first, meaning an exit for less than the issued stock value will leave options holders empty handed. Sorry if I mixed up any important words, I’ve been out of the game for a couple of years.

wolco 7y ago

In real life. The founders and angel shares do not delute and your percentage goes down each round. If your lucky they are worth the same.

spullara 7y ago
Founder and angel shares absolutely dilute with additional rounds of funding unless you have provisions that are very rare in term sheets and founder agreements.
- coderheed 7y ago
  Pro rata [1] is pretty standard [edit: at least in early stage startups], so investors typically have the option to maintain their level of ownership by putting money into the round. Everyone else gets diluted. I think in practice investors only get diluted if they actually want to. I'm not sure how often pro rata is extended to founders, but I would guess it's pretty common. [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/how-pro-rata-works-in-venture-capital-deals/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/13/how-pro-rata-works-in-vent...
  - spullara 7y ago
    It is not common that founders get pro-rata rights.

rrix2 7y ago

through dilution "you'll pretty much be set to the original value" after each funding round is what the OP said. they're purposely complicated, and recruiters and VCs will take advantage of people who don't know how to do the math or reason about the amount of value extraction they're capable of, telling folks "oh this stock could be worth 100x of what is now"

munchbunny 7y ago

Two ways this happens are liquidation preference and "participation". In both cases (they work differently but mean similar downsides for employee stock), your stake's value becomes conditional on a best case scenario exit and investors in practice gain more ownership than the numbers immediately reveal. If the company fails, all that means nothing. If the company goes big, it won't matter. But in the most likely exit case where the company sells for less than everyone was hoping, now you get into the interesting territory where the investors might make their 1.5x return before you see a cent. It's not that founders don't understand this. It's that founders end up taking these conditions when they're low on negotiation leverage and choose between that and running out of funding, so it's an understandable decision. However, they also avoid talking about it unless forced to because it changes how you will value your stock, which changes how attractive your offer or current compensation is. As a rule I ask about it when I talk to startups about job offers.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]