It's unfair to characterize all startups as nirvana, and it's likewise unfair to label them all as run by evil masterminds taking advantage of their employees. Sure, some startups are total shit, others are actually pretty enjoyable places to work. So let's not paint this as either black or white.
You make some great points that a lot of "wide eyed" grads could use to hear more of. There are also a few things I take issue with.
About equity: one thing I make sure everyone I hire understands very clearly is that equity is not a sure thing. I have this same conversation on every phone call where I make a job offer: "Here is the percentage of the company you would get. Here is what we think it might be worth today based on realistic multiples of our revenues and profits. Here is what we think it might be worth in 3-4 years if we continue growing as quickly as we are today, you should think about and come up with your own expected value. It's very possible it will be worth nothing if things don't go well." I want people to value their equity, because I think it is and will be worth a lot, but I want them to go in with their eyes open, and understand there are no guarantees.
On the other points:
1. Take the least amount of stock possible is not a good generally-applicable rule. It might have worked for you in the past, but it sure wouldn't have worked well for any of the employees of Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Weebly, etc.
2. Technically correct, but a better way to look at it might be to figure out a current value and the chance of the stock being liquid and coming to an expected value. At least that recognizes some potential for value. If you think the chance of liquidity is very low, then your expected value could effectively be zero. It's probably not a good idea to work at a startup where the chance of liquidity is minuscule, anyway.
3. No, that would not work, because no one would accept one set that way. If you want to make it equally ridiculous, I could invent a valuation that I tell everyone, nobody is stopping me from doing that. A smarter bet would be to ask "What was your last funding round valuation?" or "What is the current 409A valuation?" These are valuations set by third parties. Sometimes VC valuations miss their mark, but at a minimum you know an intelligent third party believes they are going to make money at that valuation.
5. This is not true. The reason earlier employees receive more stock than later employees is that everyone is receiving the same dollar amount, but how much stock you get for that dollar amount changes. To keep it simple, if you are employee #1 and you get $100k of stock at a company valued at $10M, you get 1% of the company. Later, if you get $100k of stock valued at $100M, you get .1%, etc.
This makes a whole lot of sense: first, the company was super speculative and full of risk when the earliest employees joined. Then, their efforts directly contributed to the company being (much) more valuable. This was not a guaranteed process, they took on a lot of risk (things could have gone miserably south). They are rewarded for that risk when the company grows.
About founders being there earlier..... that is a pretty asinine argument. Maybe the founders shouldn't have been there and there wouldn't even be a company we are complaining about in the first place?
6. Don't take a pay cut to join a startup, then. Plenty of us (like Weebly) pay market or better. We don't expect you to work 100 hours a week, in fact we are happy with 40. What we do focus on is output, which some achieve in 40 productive hours, and it takes others 60. Any startup has sprints, but we try to be very cognizant of burn-out and follow up with vacation or more relaxed periods.
If you never want to take a pay cut, then join a startup with traction that's profitable or well-funded. If you want to add on some more risk (for potentially larger reward), then go take a pay cut at a brand new startup and play the game. It may or may not work out, but if it does, then you'll be one of those early guys with lots of stock that the OP is complaining about.
And the free food? What about just doing nice things? Am I automatically a sociopath in every thing I do? Honestly, the free food for us is just nice & convenient. It's a bonus that people tend to end up eating together, talking, getting to know each other better, etc.
We're trying to create a place where we want to work, and that drives a lot of our decisions, not some kind of sociopathic desire to extract another 30 minutes of work.
1. Yes it is. Startup failure rates are really that high.
2. No one knows these odds or who will actually succeed - it's the reason why being a VC is so random. Furthermore - failure rates still push the EV towards zero.
3. The difference between say $3 million at a $15 million valuation post money and my example aren't really that different. Valuation leverage is a huge issue that no one seems to talk about.
5. You say this as if startups grow linearly and smoothly - this is not the case. They do so in fits and bursts - and I've seen too many cases of zombie founders and terrible early employees to honestly think this is true. More often than not later employees carry the company.
6. That's not really a denial. You just reworded 100+ hour work weeks and sprints in nicer terms.
Most frivolous benefits at startups are merely extreme examples of psychological arbitrage.
6. I'm not sure where you're getting these numbers from. You talk in black in white and categorically (and quite unfairly) paint startups as slave labor camps where employees are treated like shit and exploited at every possible opportunity. I know a lot of people both founding and working for startups, and I've never actually heard of employees being asked or even implicitly pressured to work 100+ hour weeks. That's not to say that it never happens, but from the pretty large sample I have, I've personally never heard of it. That seems to pretty much contradict your statement outright, given that it's so extreme and broad.
Dave phrased his answer in very reasonable terms that, based on my experience, closely match reality. You just flat out ignored them and went back to your original claim as if his points simply had no merit.
100+ looks like a typo. confluence's original post said 60+. This is common at startups, and there was more to point #6 anyway.
Aside from that typo, confluence's points closely match my perspective. Just rational risk management. Understand the system you're you're getting into, without illusions. drusenko rhetorically asked if this all makes him sociopathic. (That is, an ideal rational amoral self-interest.) Frankly, I think that's a type error -- he's not sociopathic, but his corporation probably is. And that's just plain institutional constraint; startups already have a huge failure rate, even when acting in that kind of rational way. I am not a sociopath, but my corporation overall acts like one. With my support. Otherwise we court extra chance of failure.
2. It all depends on what your failure rate is. It'd have to be astronomically high to truly "approach zero".
3. You're acting as if somehow VCs putting in millions of dollars are doing it for the express purpose of creating a fake valuation to screw employees. This is a spectacularly self-centered point of view.
The reality is that what you call "valuation leverage" doesn't matter. The valuation set just determines what % of the company the investor owns and if they can make a return if someone else decides that the company is worth more than that or if the company goes public.
The valuation of an investment round is actually fairly meaningless if you really think about it. The only one that really matters is a sale or IPO.
Besides, you could say the same thing about valuation leverage with an IPO. It's rare for 100% of a company to be traded, that doesn't mean that each independent party isn't acting in their own rational best interest by trying to accurately place a value on the company.
5. There are certainly counter-examples, I won't deny that.
6. I've had this discussion here a million times before and I don't want to have it again. We're not EA, we're not forcing anybody to do anything, and I wager our average work week is 45 hours. But suffice to say, if you never want to work a minute over 40 hours, then don't. Nobody is forcing you to take the job, make your intentions clear when you interview.
> "It'd have to be astronomically high to truly "approach zero"."
No, it doesn't. A low failure rate can still work out to an EV of near-zero for the employee. You're disregarding powerful effects:
- dilution between grant and exit
- amount of equity being offered in the first place
- opportunity cost of passing up traditional cash/stock bonus structures at BigCos
The fact of the matter is, a meaningful exit for the founders is almost always an insubstantial exit for the employee. Owning 20% of a company is very different than owning 0.05% of a company, post-dilution through additional rounds of financing.
The culprits here aren't VCs. The VCs are putting in the money the company needs to do its thing. Valuation isn't the problem - the attitudes of founders is. I've found that founders mentally grossly overestimate the value of the equity they're handing out. I've seen people demand 5-figure pay cuts for 0.1%-level equity, and this isn't uncommon.
The amount of equity being handed around by founders, even to early employees, is not high enough for anyone to seriously consider taking a pay cut.
If you want me to take a pay cut, give me an amount of equity that might actually result in a meaningful exit. Of course, at the current salary/comp level of competent engineers, we're talking >1% levels of equity, and no founder is willing to part with that.
2. Dilution, liquidation preferences and different stock class rights do indeed push it towards zero.
3. No I'm not. I'm merely indicating that valuations are bogus.
6. Implicit force is still force - just because you haven't mandated it doesn't mean it's not enforced via threat of firing and peer pressure dynamics.
In short, 13% of VC-backed startups exit for over $10M, 5% exit for over $50M, and 2% exit for over $100M, which is what I'd call a meaningful exit for all parties involved.
I have worked at three startups where I joined at <10 employees. Best result was stock-options worth less than the price. Worst was they owed me a paycheck. I had fun, and we had a good chance of making it big with all of them. I like to think that if I'd been offered the chance to join Google at <10 that I'd have been wise enough to spot the potential value of the company and take more stock. Unfortunately: a) I was not asked and b) I probably would not have had that wisdom. However, if I had been asked, but had not taken more stock, I'd still be a millionaire, just not a billionaire.
>1. Take the least amount of stock possible is not a good generally-applicable rule. It might have worked for you in the past, but it sure wouldn't have worked well for any of the employees of Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Weebly, etc.
A more accurate statement would be "...is not a good universally-applicable rule...".
To add some numbers to the discussion, there are currently 203 startups listed on Angel List as hiring for full-time dev roles in the SF Bay Area. How many will exit in such a manner as to yield financial rewards via equity / ownership / deferred compensation?
Note the bar has been set considerably lower than for the companies you listed (e.g. big-name successes), and my sense is that we're still talking about fewer than 50%.
It's quite difficult for new hires to correctly gauge a startups long-term potential. After all, professional investors (who by definition do this for a living) routinely mis-calculate. Given this, it seems fairly sensible for potential hires to err on the side of caution.
I would be surprised if even 25% of those startups had a meaningful exit. But even at 25%, we're a very long way from the lottery odds -- that comparison always strikes me as quite misleading.
As repeatedly mentioned, a "meaningful exit" can make the founders extremely rich, and pay employees the equivalent of a routine annual bonus at a normal firm. ($5k-$25k)
Candidates have no way to evaluate the value of the equity pressed upon them, but even in the case of a successful exit, it's usually quite small.
"1. Take the least amount of stock possible is not a good generally-applicable rule. It might have worked for you in the past, but it sure wouldn't have worked well for any of the employees of Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Weebly, etc."
And for the people who won the Powerball, "Don't buy lottery tickets" wouldn't have worked well for them. That doesn't mean "Don't buy lottery tickets" isn't a good generally-applicable rule.
Cashing out big on your startup might not be quite as rare as winning the Powerball, but it's still awfully unlikely.
1 in 50 seems... very, very optimistic. On top of that, the investment is higher than the lottery. The lottery costs you $1. This costs you ~$10-20k in salary, and possibly more in lost opportunities and time you would've had elsewhere.
In short, 13% of VC-backed startups exit for over $10M, 5% exit for over $50M, and 2% exit for over $100M, which is what I'd call significant.
----
Besides, there are a lot of startup opportunities that pay market, so you aren't "investing" anything in the equity, it's a bonus over what you'd get paid elsewhere.
Well articulated, David. I also implore anyone reading this to use common sense and a huge risk-discount when evaluating the value of stock. As an employee the primary thing you should worry about is not whether the company is going to be 100x or 1000x return, it's whether it's going to succeed at all and you are far better equipped to do this than you realise.
An investor's job is to catch the winners. An employee's job is to avoid the losers.
As an employee, your main interest is not in what the top end of the stock may be, you don't have a portfolio, you aren't doing "black swan investments" you are investing your life and your time. It makes sense for professional investors to go in even at ridiculous valuations because one win can carry 19 losses.
As an employee you do not have a 20 strong portfolio. If you start young you have maybe five or six swings at bat and then you'll have a mortgage, kids, family. The return as an employee simply doesn't justify high levels of risk, the main job is just to ensure you're a part of something that works.
So how can you do that? Ask the questions you know make sense. Are you working for company run by founders who can sensibly and calmly articulate why they will succeed. Do the people around them also believe this and do you trust their judgement? Does the company have a justifiable burn rate and is it on track to make sustainable money in a market that's not unreasonably small? Would you pay money for the product or do you feel your customers are being duped? If the answer to the above questions is yes then put value in your stock. If not then don't.
> This is not true. The reason earlier employees receive more stock than later employees is that everyone is receiving the same dollar amount, but how much stock you get for that dollar amount changes. To keep it simple, if you are employee #1 and you get $100k of stock at a company valued at $10M, you get 1% of the company. Later, if you get $100k of stock valued at $100M, you get .1%, etc.
> This makes a whole lot of sense: first, the company was super speculative and full of risk when the earliest employees joined. Then, their efforts directly contributed to the company being (much) more valuable. This was not a guaranteed process, they took on a lot of risk (things could have gone miserably south). They are rewarded for that risk when the company grows.
If they are giving the same value of stock, isn't that less reward for the risk? I would hope that risk plays into the value of stock granted by employees (ie: 100k and then 50k grants).
You make some great points that a lot of "wide eyed" grads could use to hear more of. There are also a few things I take issue with.
About equity: one thing I make sure everyone I hire understands very clearly is that equity is not a sure thing. I have this same conversation on every phone call where I make a job offer: "Here is the percentage of the company you would get. Here is what we think it might be worth today based on realistic multiples of our revenues and profits. Here is what we think it might be worth in 3-4 years if we continue growing as quickly as we are today, you should think about and come up with your own expected value. It's very possible it will be worth nothing if things don't go well." I want people to value their equity, because I think it is and will be worth a lot, but I want them to go in with their eyes open, and understand there are no guarantees.
On the other points:
1. Take the least amount of stock possible is not a good generally-applicable rule. It might have worked for you in the past, but it sure wouldn't have worked well for any of the employees of Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Weebly, etc.
2. Technically correct, but a better way to look at it might be to figure out a current value and the chance of the stock being liquid and coming to an expected value. At least that recognizes some potential for value. If you think the chance of liquidity is very low, then your expected value could effectively be zero. It's probably not a good idea to work at a startup where the chance of liquidity is minuscule, anyway.
3. No, that would not work, because no one would accept one set that way. If you want to make it equally ridiculous, I could invent a valuation that I tell everyone, nobody is stopping me from doing that. A smarter bet would be to ask "What was your last funding round valuation?" or "What is the current 409A valuation?" These are valuations set by third parties. Sometimes VC valuations miss their mark, but at a minimum you know an intelligent third party believes they are going to make money at that valuation.
5. This is not true. The reason earlier employees receive more stock than later employees is that everyone is receiving the same dollar amount, but how much stock you get for that dollar amount changes. To keep it simple, if you are employee #1 and you get $100k of stock at a company valued at $10M, you get 1% of the company. Later, if you get $100k of stock valued at $100M, you get .1%, etc.
This makes a whole lot of sense: first, the company was super speculative and full of risk when the earliest employees joined. Then, their efforts directly contributed to the company being (much) more valuable. This was not a guaranteed process, they took on a lot of risk (things could have gone miserably south). They are rewarded for that risk when the company grows.
About founders being there earlier..... that is a pretty asinine argument. Maybe the founders shouldn't have been there and there wouldn't even be a company we are complaining about in the first place?
6. Don't take a pay cut to join a startup, then. Plenty of us (like Weebly) pay market or better. We don't expect you to work 100 hours a week, in fact we are happy with 40. What we do focus on is output, which some achieve in 40 productive hours, and it takes others 60. Any startup has sprints, but we try to be very cognizant of burn-out and follow up with vacation or more relaxed periods.
If you never want to take a pay cut, then join a startup with traction that's profitable or well-funded. If you want to add on some more risk (for potentially larger reward), then go take a pay cut at a brand new startup and play the game. It may or may not work out, but if it does, then you'll be one of those early guys with lots of stock that the OP is complaining about.
And the free food? What about just doing nice things? Am I automatically a sociopath in every thing I do? Honestly, the free food for us is just nice & convenient. It's a bonus that people tend to end up eating together, talking, getting to know each other better, etc.
We're trying to create a place where we want to work, and that drives a lot of our decisions, not some kind of sociopathic desire to extract another 30 minutes of work.