5 ms·
One clause that's gone uncommented: Transfer Restrictions: Bylaws and option plan documents shall include limitations on certain transfers, includi
by jorgeortiz85 13y ago
One clause that's gone uncommented:
Transfer Restrictions:
Bylaws and option plan documents shall include limitations on
certain transfers, including on secondary markets, to
competitors, or that may trigger public reporting obligations.
In order for investors, founders, and employees to cash out on their stock holdings, companies need to have an exit. An exit can be an acquisition by an already-public company, or an IPO (taking the company public).
In the first Dot Com bubble, companies would IPO before reaching profitability and sometimes even before reaching significant revenue. For a number of reasons (scrutiny from Wall Street, public reporting obligations, Sarbanes-Oxley), companies that intend to go public increasingly choose to delay their IPOs.
In 2004, Google went public with 2003 revenues of $960m and profits of $105m. In 2012, Facebook went public with 2011 revenues of $3700m and profits of $1000m.
One way shareholders managed their longer time-until-IPO horizons is by selling their stock on the secondary market. Many startups (SecondMarket, SharesPost, etc) were set up to help shareholders of successful companies like Facebook and Twitter sell their private company stock to qualified investors.
The transfer restriction quoted above means shareholders can't transfer (sell) their stock until IPO or unless they have the consent of the board.
Investors tend to have long-term horizons and may not care about getting locked up in an investment until IPO. In any case, investors are well represented on boards. Founders have leverage with the board and can negotiate partial cash-outs (selling some of their common stock to investors), but in any case own their shares outright and can hold on to them until IPO.
Employees with incentive stock options, however, can get screwed. Options are not stock and (even after having vested!) will expire if the employee quits or gets fired. If the company is doing well, the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the stock may be much higher than the employee's exercise price, which means exercising the options will incur a large Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) penalty. This means an employee might have very valuable, vested stock options but no way to keep them upon leaving the company because exercising can put them in a tricky cash flow situation where the IRS expects them to pay taxes on unrealized (and unrealizable, because of transfer restrictions) capital gains.
This term sheet is generally founder-friendly, but the transfer restriction is certainly not employee-friendly.
- sama 13y agoThis is intentional. I believe that secondary markets are usually bad, and always distracting. I'm not opposed to pre-exit liquidity, but a secondary market that the company does not oversee causes huge issues. Most companies now prevent this. Your point about ISOs expiring is reasonable--I think a lot of companies are using RSUs partly for this reason.
- jorgeortiz85 13y agoI understand it's intentional. What your original post made me realize is that transfer restrictions have become standard terms. More people should understand what that means. Secondary markets have issues, but so do secondary offerings overseen by the company. There can be pretty big principal-agent problems, both around price and around timing. I'm less familiar with the traps and pitfalls of RSUs, but in general they seem fairer than ISOs. I hope they're used more widely.
- fizx 13y agoIt benefits no one to have employees sitting around vesting because they can't pay their taxes to leave, hence RSUs have become more popular. I'm more interested in the emergence of derivatives markets against RSUs. It's started already, and I wonder if companies are going to attempt to put that cat back in the bag, or just ignore it as it largely doesn't affect them.
- paulsutter 13y agoCould you expand on be "huge issues" caused by secondary sales? I'm having trouble thinking of any. The most common criticism I've heard is that secondary sales can make it difficult for the company to maintain a fiction about their common share price, but that amounts to a tax dodge anyway. Love to hear some concrete thoughts on the matter.
- kogir 13y agoA good example would be 409A valuations[1], which set the price at which options can be granted. Sale of employee stock on a secondary market can dramatically raise the price at which the company has to grant future options, making it harder to hire, and hurting future employees. While this might be ok in open markets with real competition, it's possible (and in fact common) for common stock in trending companies to be overvalued on secondary markets. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_section_409A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code_section_4...