1/ Early stage founders regularly ask for advice on setting their own salaries. This is a somewhat touchy subject, but the main factors that I've seen people use to set their own salaries are: a) personal expenses, b) personal savings, c) how much cash the company has.
2/ The main tension for very young companies is that their cash runway is very limited, so the difference between two founders each taking $50k vs $150k per year is huge if the company only has $750k in the bank to start with.
3/ As a result, many founders tend to take a "minimum viable salary." The question you want to answer is: how much cash do you need to cover expenses and not stress out about bills every month?
4/ If you're 22, living w/4 roommates, and have zero financial obligations, maybe you just need $25k-$50k/yr. If you're married w/a mortgage, maybe it's $75k or $100k. If you have kids and your spouse is unemployed, maybe it's $125k+. Almost any number is fine if it's justified.
5/ But there's strong pressure to not go too far above a minimum viable salary. Every month of company runway you remove will decrease your company's chance of success. E.g.:
18 mo of initial runway -> 50% chance to hit Series A metrics
15 mo -> 30% chance
12 mo -> 15% chance
6/ So if you don't *need* more cash, it's better to use the runway for other company expenses.
Why? Because if you own 40% of a company, a $100k salary and 40% chance of the company being worth $40m next year is better than a $200k salary but only a 20% chance of $40m next year.
7/ When you own such a big chunk of a company, the expected value of your stock dominates your salary.
It's not even close.
8/ For founders who are fortunate enough to have lots of savings, not taking any salary and maximizing the company's runway can be a good option. That's a privileged position to be in.
9/ For most founders who are not so lucky, take whatever salary you need to not be anxious about your life outside of work.
10/ If that salary number is uncomfortably high, one possible solution is a more dilutive seed round.
For example, instead of selling 20% in a seed round for $2.5m, sell 22% for $2.75m. It's a little more dilution, but gives you more cash if you really need it.
11/ Finally, talking about money is uncomfortable, but it's crucial. If you're the founder of a seed stage co & you're worried about your electricity staying on this month, then your salary is too low. If you're saving $10k/mo, then your salary is probably higher than necessary.
12/ Ultimately what you, your investors, your employees, & your customers ALL want is for the company to create a lot of value and be hugely successful. Usually the best way to do that is to have a low personal burn rate and give your company as much time to succeed as possible.
13/ And finally, salaries reset a lot after a Series A. An extra $50k/yr is a lot if your company only has $1m in the bank, but it doesn't matter if you have $15m in the bank.
Addendum: to make it explicit, I want all founders to have salaries that don't cause stress. For every 1 founder that asks me if $250k is ok b/c that's what they made as a lawyer/etc, 10 founders ask if $30K is too much. Not even close to too much, and if you need more take more!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ The argument is that wealth shouldn't have so much influence over innovation. But that's backwards. Most big innovations wouldn't exist w/o $ incentives -- which lead to wealth. What fraction of stuff we use was created by companies vs. govts, non-profits, etc? I'd wager 95+%.
3/ The market's incentives will lead to some accruing more relative wealth than others, but they also make everyone wealthier in an *absolute* sense. I'd rather be poorer in a world w/smartphones, refrigerated food, and cancer cures than wealthier in a world w/o those things.
1/ After reflecting for a while on @AngelList's rolling funds, I believe they will be very disruptive.
Previously the best way to start a VC fund was to build an investing track record. That takes many years. Rolling funds allow people to turn reputations into investing capital.
2/ The interesting development is that these reputations don't have to be investing-related. If you have a great network and you're well-known as an amazing founder or PM or ML expert, you can probably roll* that into a rolling fund.
* Sorry about the pun. I am who I am.
3/ Also, if you're a principal at a larger venture fund that doesn't have near-term partner openings, and you have 10k+ Twitter followers, why wouldn't you spin out to do a rolling fund? You can advertise your fund publicly, leverage your audience, and accelerate your career.
Surprising pattern in seed stage VC funds: if a fund is reasonably diversified, it'll need at least one $1b+ exit for a great total fund return. Regardless of fund size.
Doesn't matter if it's a $150m fund buying 15% stakes or a $10m fund buying 1% stakes.
Smaller isn't easier.
Assumptions:
- 50% of fund is for initial checks, 50% for follow-on checks.
- 30 investments.
- 50% dilution over time.
- In 90% of good funds, the top company returns the entire fund by itself. See comment below from a highly regarded fund-of-funds:
So the top investment is initially 1/60 of your fund, and eventually 1x+ your fund AFTER 50% dilution. For that to happen, the company's valuation has to grow 120-fold. At today's $8m+ seed stage valuations, this kind of multiple means a fund's top investment has to be a unicorn.
1/ The amount of great content coming out these days for founders, managers, and employees is incredible. Tons of 10+ and even 100+ page detailed tactical manuals, interactive guides, curated content databases, you name it. A few notable examples:
1/ I started thinking about accredited investor requirements again after the tweet below. The requirements make SO LITTLE SENSE & needlessly block people from making investments they want to make. For fun, here's a list of 10 absurd consequences of our accredited investor system.
2/ As a reminder, in the US you're an accredited investor if you make $200k/year for two years (or $300k jointly with a spouse) OR if your net worth, excluding your primary residence, is $1m or more. You have to be accredited to invest in startups, hedge funds, etc.
3/ Consequence #1: if you make $200k you're accredited (and therefore "sophisticated" enough to make high risk investments); if you make $195k then you're not.
1/ Earlier, I was chatting w/someone about the math of cold emails. TLDR if you write a large number of *good* emails then you will get good results.
There are three groups of people: 1) never reply to any cold email 2) rarely reply to cold emails 3) very open to cold emails
2/ Right off the bat, maybe 75% of cold emails are ignored because the person you're writing to is in the first two groups.
3/ For the remaining 25%, the reply rate depends on the quality your email. The better the email, the higher the reply rate. If you have an above average email, maybe half of the receptive group replies; if your email is stellar, almost everyone replies.