A thread on employee equity in early stage startups -- what are the compensation norms? What every early employee should ask? Some thoughts on whether the structure is fair.
Read on >>
1) First, there are NO NORMS! Hah. I have literally seen everything from giving early employees no equity to giving employee #1s near co-founder level of shares.
But what is more common than not?
2) In the Silicon Valley, if you're hiring your 1st employee, & you've raised NO $$ & are paying very little (e.g $0-$10k / yr or thereabouts), your first employee is basically a co-founder.
And the equity tranche for employee 1 should be closer to a co-founder level.
3) For ex, a friend of mine gave his employee #1 10% (vesting over 4 yrs of course) of the business. This employee was only getting his housing paid for. And this was 10 yrs ago, so it was during the bust.
4) On the flip side, if you have raised some $$ & are paying employee #1 near mkt rate, typically I see around here ppl get 1-5% (w/ vesting).
Caveat - near mkt rate doesn't mean compared to Google or FB salary rates. I mean compared to "normal big cos"
5) If you're in the rare case, where you're able to raise a lot of money out of the gates and are paying employee 1 market rate, then the equity can be a lot less.
It's basically like working for a big co at that pt. Limited risk and no loss of earnings.
6) Think about equity as a counterbalance to the risk of your co. If your co is super early, has no cash, and the employee is sacrificing a lot, more equity balances this.
If your co is in a great position & offers competitive comp package - then it's more like a "regular job".
7) Employee #2 is generally considered to be in a similar boat as employee #1. Probably because they usually come into the co around the same time.
8) But after that, if you bring in a handful of ppl after you do your next raise (even if your raise is small) OR after you make some money via revenue, the risk goes down. And their comp generally goes up a bit.
So the equity drops off.
9) Common packages I've seen for employee 3, 4, 5 are closer to 0.1-0.5%. It drops by an order of magnitude!
But, if you're bringing all these ppl in at the same time in the same situation as employee 1, 2, they probably should be granted closer to what employee #1 and 2 get.
10) If you raise again, it tends to drop by another order of magnitude. Again, the thinking is around how risky is the company and how much is the employee giving up relative to working at a big co. And so on and so forth.
11) This gives you a sense of the differences between being a co-founder, employee #1, and subsequent employees.
12) So if you're employee #5 at a startup that sells for $10m, you're not going to make a lot of money.
That being said, it may also not actually be that risky when you go to that startup (compared to a big company - which also do layoffs).
13) And being employee #5 is certainly NOT as risky as being a co-founder who has to go and SELL or RAISE the money to pay in the first place.
Co-founders also have the mental burden of worrying about the whole team and where the next $ is coming from compared to employee #5.
14) Is this fair? I think so as long as everyone understands what they are getting into. There are many reasons to be employee #5 instead of the co-founder even though there is a HUGE dropoff in the rewards.
You gain experience on someone else's dime & have no real headaches.
15) That said, if you are employee #1, and you're not getting paid at all and bear the brunt of the company and are helping w/ the fundraising just like the co-founders, then I don't think that is fair.
16) One thing early employees don't do enough is ask qs about their shares. You DEFINITELY SHOULD!
-what % of the co am I getting? (# of shares doesn't matter -- it's the % that matters)
-what is the ability to liquidate?
-can I get access to investor updates?
17) I've heard that founders are often cagey with this info. That is a VERY BAD SIGN.
Let's be honest - it means they don't actually care about you as an employee.
You are going to be a shareholder - shouldn't you know the answer to all these qs?
18) And if it turns out your equity comp really isn't in-line with what you see around you as the norm and the situation of the company, then it's a discussion. It's a discussion just like how salary is a discussion.
19) There are obviously exceptions to all of this. If you bring in top hitting ppl into your company -- even much later, their equity could be through the roof -- and well worth it!
As of 2019, Eric Schmidt, former CEO of Google owned 8.6% of GOOG.
Was it worth it? Probably!
20) Lastly, like everything else, deals are forged via supply & demand.
Your ability as a company to recruit and the person you're recruiting's alternatives.
And also long as everyone knows what they are getting into, that is all that matters and all rules go out the window.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Saturday thoughts on market pull. What is it? How is it different from Total Addressable Market (TAM)? And what ideas tend to have strong market pull?
A thread >>
1) First: "Market pull" != market size.
IMO (and most VCs will disagree!!), market size (TAM) doesn't *really* matter. But market pull DEFINITELY does. For that reason, I've almost never asked a startup about TAM.
Why?
2) First, what is TAM?
TAM is a sizing of how big your market is. A good way to estimate this is - if you can get to all potential buyers and based on how much $$ they are worth to you, how much money can your company make if you took the whole mkt?
I want to talk about trust. If you're pitching an investor, establishing trust is really important.
Pitching is not only about convincing someone that you will grow their money but also that you will be good stewards of their money.
A thread >>
1) One of the reasons investors sometimes take so long in making a decision on an investment - especially if they are writing a large check -- is that they need to trust you w/ a significant amount they are managing.
2) And part of that exercise is for investors to have enough touchpoints with a founder to get a good read.
If they detect something fishy at all -- even remotely -- that's the end of the conversation. And not just on this business idea but all subsequent ideas.
Tonight's thread is about what it's like to be a fund manager. I think the best analog is actually a sports coach.
Which seems like a weird analogy, right? 🤯
But here's why >>
1) If you're a basketball coach, your goal is win championships with the best team. There are many strategies to assembling the best team. In doing so, you need to recruit. Sell players on working with you. And collectively win.
2) As a coach, you aren't playing the game. You don't get to control the court. Your players do. Your players get the glory if they win.
At the same time, you don't beat yourself up if one of your players had an off day.
Today's thread is on outbound sales for founders. At a high level, what is the strategy? How do you create a repeatable process out of it?
Specifically, the focus of this thread will be on the method @motoceo talks about in his book Predictable Revenue.
Read on >>
1) If you are building a B2B company (or heck even a B2C co), I would HIGHLY recommend reading or even just skimming the book Predictable Revenue by Aaron Ross.