3 ms·
> Suppose I have a company idea, maybe an early prototype and manage to raise $2MM at $10MM post-money valuation. The investors have a 20% stake for their inve
by bb88 7y ago
> Suppose I have a company idea, maybe an early prototype and manage to raise $2MM at $10MM post-money valuation. The investors have a 20% stake for their investment.
The rich technically have less personal risk -- that's because, well, they're rich. GP arguably took more personal risk, took less pay, and created the machinery that made the company profitable.
If you want to say that the original $2M is paid out before anyone else is, that's fine, especially in a sinking ship.
If you mean to say that on a %1000 increase of company valuation, GP should not get his share because, well, he didn't fund $2M dollars -- that's _utter_ bullshit. And arguing that VC's should get preferential treatment so they can directly screw over the people who directly provided the growth is the stupidest argument I've heard for this clause.
- sokoloff 7y agoDo you read any of the latter in my argument above as to why liquidation preferences exist? It seems to me that you built and eviscerated a strawman right in front of us.
- bb88 7y agoDid you see where I said, "If you mean to say..." You could just have said, "No. I agree with you on that point."
- pm90 7y agoI think the point the OP is trying to make is that the structure that you described, while great in protecting investors, seems pretty unfair when the startups do succeed. So while recouping the intitial investment preferentially sounds great, it shouldn’t be extended as far as giving the 20% investors the lions share of a successful exit before the people that actually built value. The liquidity preferences could certainly be structured in a fairer fashion. Just because it’s currently structured this way doesn’t mean that it needs to be always or that it’s a great model ( it’s not unless you’re a VC, which is basically the point).
- notSupplied 7y agoImagine if you had a very deal-term savvy crew of engineer hires. They then proceed claim that "the compensation cut we have taken by working here directly offsets cash you would otherwise have to spend/raise. This should count as a capital investment and should therefore entitle us to 1x preference just like for the other investors have." Would you think this is a legitimate claim?
- golergka 7y ago> The rich technically have less personal risk It's silly to automatically assume that "investor" or "capitalist" is someone rich. Chances are, the VC get their money from banks and pension funds who, in the end, invest money of people who earn much less than an average startup employee.
- tomp 7y agoThe point is that they’re (or at least should be) diversifying their investments, in contrast to most employees, who only have a single job.