Post Category → Venture Capital

Splitting Founder Equity: Avoid “Grunt Funds”

TL;DR Nutshell: If you plan on building a scalable, VC-backed company, you need to learn (early on) to have hard conversations. Fact. Your first hard conversation may involve figuring out the equity split among founders. A few people (who are good at SEO) are pushing a concept called “Grunt Funds” in which founder equity, instead of being negotiated and set from the beginning, continues to change month-by-month according to some overly complex formula.  I’ve never seen it work well in the context of high-growth tech startups. Have the hard conversation. If you can’t figure out how to split founder equity, good luck building a company. 

Negotiating the “equity split” among a pair or group of founders is an extremely important part of a startup’s formation process, and there is a lot of good web content available providing guidance on how to get it done. Below is a list of a few articles worth reading. I don’t necessarily endorse all of what they say, but it’s your job as CEO/Founder to read, make your own judgments, and act on them. Advisor Whiplash is part of the job.

Another piece of relevant reading on how to document founder splits: SHL: How Founders (Should) Break Up

The point of this post is to make one thing clear: if you are building the type of startup that will raise angel and VC money, stay away from “Grunt Funds” or anything that attempts to create a variable, constantly changing founder equity split. 

Figure Out the Numbers. Don’t Hide Behind Formulas. 

I’m not going to link to any articles promoting the “grunt fund” concept to avoid giving it any more air time on Google than it already has. The origin is a book called “Slicing the Pie.” Basically, instead of figuring out founder equity %s like a normal company, “grunt fund” founders set up a formula with half a dozen metrics that are measured on a monthly basis to gauge “performance,” “contribution,” whatever, and founder equity is accumulated over time based on those metrics. It is tedious, ends up costing more in legal fees in the long-run, and in my experience never survives scrutiny from investors. It has, every time I’ve encountered it (thankfully, a significant minority of cases) ended up being a waste of founder time and money.

Good Founder Docs Are Already Flexible

The core driver behind the desire for an always-changing equity split among founders can be boiled down to one question: “what if things change?” What if one person turns out to be a dud, and another unexpectedly a rockstar? What if someone’s personal life causes them to leave? What if the business changes and a particular founder’s skills are no longer valuable?  These are absolutely valid questions, and they require that founder equity have built in mechanisms to allow equity to be readjusted if needed.

Thankfully, there already is such a flexible mechanism in well-known, standard startup formation documents: it’s called a vesting schedule. If one person is no longer valuable to the startup, then they can leave, forfeiting their unvested equity. Or if they refuse to leave, they can be fired, also giving up their unvested equity.  Or if one person knows they’ve turned out to be more valuable than the % they got, they can force a hard discussion, with a credible threat to walk. If they are in fact as valuable as they think they are, the other founder(s) will change their %.

Is this set-up totally flexible? No, it’s not meant to be. Is it as egalitarian as a grunt fund? Maybe not, but nobody said successful startups are democracies. Brilliance is rarely built by committee. See Mark Suster on “The Importance of Benevolent Dictators.” Founder in-fighting probably ruins at least as many companies as flawed business fundamentals.

Smart Founders Figure it Out.

In my experience, successful startups are generally built either by a single founder or by founders who, more or less, know their place in the hierarchy. They have a common vision, often have strong, trusting relationships (friendships), and have a pretty good feel for whose skills really are more valuable to the startup than others. The CEO is the CEO, and the other founders know exactly why he/she is CEO. They have the tough conversations early-on, and if circumstances warrant a change from the original split, they figure it out. Ultimately, a solid founder group cares far more about building a successful company than about burning time in nonsensical formulas every month trying to see whose % went up.

I’ve seen all kinds of equity splits: 50/50 (generally a bad idea, but not always), 60/40, 33/33/33, 51/49, 80/20, all kinds of iterations. The “right” split is highly circumstantial. But in the end, the founders figure out the numbers, paper them with solid docs, and move on.

Does this mean “grunt funds” don’t work for anyone? No, I didn’t say that.  I work with the segment of the startup space that goes after scale and (usually) large amounts of outside investment needed to reach that scale. Founders jumping on that train know from the beginning that they are in for a very bumpy ride, and that anything short of complete trust and unity of vision among the team will result in a train-wreck. I’m sure GFs work in some contexts, just not in high-growth tech startups.

Have the hard conversation, avoid tedious formulas, and then get to work.  

The Problem in Everyone’s Capped Convertible Notes

TL;DR Nutshell: Standard capped convertible notes have a flawed structure in that noteholders often end up, when their notes convert, with substantially more liquidation preference than they actually paid for; which means money taken from founders’ pockets and placed in those of investors, without justification. As companies continue to push their “Series A” rounds further out with various series of capped convertible notes, the problem is growing, and a corrected note conversion structure should become the norm.

The existence of the “liquidation overhang” problem in capped convertible notes is not news. It can be explained with a simple mathematical example:

Assumptions for Hypothetical:

  • $500K seed round with notes carrying a $2.5MM valuation cap.
  • Series A has a $10MM pre-money valuation, resulting  in a per share price for new money of $4.00.
  • The Series A has a run-of-the-mill 1x participating liquidation preference. This means that the Series A have a per share liquidation preference of $4.00.
  • The $2.5MM valuation cap means the notes convert at $1.00.

Under the above example, the $500K in notes will convert, ignoring interest, into 500,000 shares.   $500,000 / $1.00

If the Notes convert directly into the same Series A preferred stock as “new money” investors get (which is what most notes require), their aggregate liquidation preference is $2 million.  500,000 shares * $4.00

So those investors paid $500,000, but they have $2 million in liquidation preference. In other words, they got a 4x participating liquidation preference. The $1.5 million difference is the “liquidation overhang.”  Ask me if I think founders/common stockholders care whether they will get an extra $1.5 million in an exit.

If you increase the size of the seed round (which is happening in the market), the overhang gets bigger on a dollar basis. (1MM shares * $4.00) – $1,000,000 = $3 million.

If you increase the gap between the Series A valuation and the seed “cap” valuation (which is also happening in the market), the overhang also gets bigger.  A $15 million Series A valuation, with a $6 share price, produces a liquidation overhang of $2.5 million.  (500,000 shares * $6.00) – $500,000

So as seed rounds get larger, and Series A rounds are extended further out (with higher valuations), the liquidation overhang grows, and more money is transferred from founders to investors.  Historically, convertible notes were called “bridge” notes because they were closed only a few months before a full equity round, offering a small discount to the Series A price. When the price differential is only 10-20%, the overhang is perhaps worth ignoring.  But when the Series A valuation is 2-3x+ of the seed valuation, it’s time to pay attention.

The Most Viable Solutions

The two most common solutions to the liquidation overhang are as follows, and both have tradeoffs.

Create the “Discount” with Common Stock – Instead of issuing (in the above example) 500,000 shares of Series A to the noteholders, issue them 125,000 Series A shares, and the remaining 375,000 as common shares.  In the end, they still have 500,000 shares, but their liquidation preference is equal to their purchase price. 125,000 * 4 = $500,000.

The downside to this approach is that it can significantly affect the voting of common stock.  There is almost always a stock class divide with “common stock” representing founders, executives, employees, and other people performing services, and “preferred stock” being investors. This keeps things simple when calculating approval thresholds for a major transaction – the “common vote” is a very distinct group from the “investor vote.”  However, depending on the numbers, it’s very easy with this “common stock solution” to reach a point where a very large chunk of the common stock is in fact investors, reducing the voting power of founders.  Not an insurmountable problem, but it is a problem.

Issue Sub-Series of Preferred Stock – This is actually my favored approach. In the above example, instead of issuing 500,000 shares of Series A to the noteholders, issue them 500,000 shares of Series A-2. Series A-2 would just be a series of stock that is exactly the same as the Series A in all respects, including voting, except for the liquidation preference (and basis of anti-dilution and dividend rights, which are related). The Series A would have a per share liquidation preference of $4.00 per share, and the Series A-2 would have $1.00 per share. Problem solved.

The most commonly brought-up downside to this approach is that it creates more complexity in the Company’s deal documents and cap table.  While it’s true that you will need to do a bit more work in the company’s deal docs, it does not take that much work to create a Series A and Series A-2, but have them all work together for everything other than liquidation preference.  Even if you have multiple valuation caps, doing a Series A, A-2, A-3, etc. is not that hard.

My somewhat cynical view is that this complaint comes mostly from (i) investors who are trying to convince founders that all of this liquidation overhang “stuff” isn’t that big of a deal and not worth addressing (meaning, an extra few million in their pockets isn’t a “big deal”), or (ii) lawyers at overpriced firms who are ALWAYS running over fixed legal budgets, so having to do ANY kind of extra customization to their template docs results in kicking and screaming.

In the exact same way that “why do we need two sets of lawyers? just use ours, and save on legal fees” is complete non-sense designed to screw founders, the “just give everyone Series A shares and keep it simple” position is ridiculous given the economic impact on founders.  If you’re being told to pay a few extra thousand in legal to potentially save several million in an exit, the issue is fundamentally an IQ test.

Why Founders Don’t Trust Startup Lawyers

“We received a term sheet from a competing VC syndicate, and if I go to our current lawyers, our existing investors will find out about it before I want them to.  Our law firm does a lot of work for our VCs.”

“Our VCs told us that if we used their preferred law firm, they’d close more quickly and even save us money by not hiring their own lawyers. But if we went with another firm, there ‘could be delays.'” 

“I went to my Board to disclose this highly confidential issue that only our lawyers and I knew about, and I realized that our VCs were already aware of it. No one but our lawyers could’ve disclosed it.”

“The lawyers that our investors connected us to said that the valuation in our term sheet was about market. It was only after closing that I found out we got totally hosed.”

The above are quotes or paraphrases of statements that we, as a firm, have heard directly from founders/executives as they explain their reasons for changing law firms. The unifying theme should be obvious, and it relates to the broader issue of why so many founders have such dim views of startup lawyers in general. In short, by playing fast and loose with conflicts of interest in the pursuit of maximizing short-term revenue, many startup lawyers and law firms have squandered their most valuable currency: trust.

Related Reading: How Founders Lose Control of Their Startups

What is Counsel?

No one who reads SHL or interacts with E/N’s tech practice would argue that our approach to the practice of law is “old school” in any sense of the term. The significant drivers of our growth include rethinking major facets of law practice, including organizational structure, compensation models, project management and technology adoption. However, while I am very much a tinkerer with respect to the delivery of legal services, I am quite old-school in my view of what lawyers fundamentally are, or at least should be: trusted counsel.

In a heated, high-stakes lawsuit or investigation, virtually everything you’ve ever said in writing to investors, to other executives, to friends and family, can be forced out into the open for everyone to review except for confidential communications with the Company’s lawyers (attorney-client privilege).  Take a moment to let that sink in. Nothing that you ever do or say as a company is more secure from forced disclosure than what you say to your lawyers.  That is, of course, unless the lawyers themselves disclose it.

Ask many founders whether they really trust the lawyers representing their company, and some will flat out say that, to them, their lawyers are just subject-matter experts there to paper deals and ensure the company doesn’t blow up from legal issues; highly-educated paper pushers and fire extinguishers.  Others will say that they do trust (in a sense) their lawyers, but when pushed into a serious, high-stakes situation in which total objectivity and confidence is paramount, the reality of their superficial relationship will surface.

  • Is the valuation they’re offering appropriate for our company, geography, and market?
  • Is this provision dangerous? Is it standard?
  • Some local people are pushing us to X accelerator, but we’re not sure it’s right for us. What should we do?
  • We need to make a major strategic shift that some of our stakeholders will want to block – what are our options?
  • My company is going under if I don’t get this deal done, but X investor says he will block it. Can he? What are my options?
  • We just got an acquisition offer, and I’m not sure whether it’s fair to me and my management team. What should we do?
  • One of our senior executives just got arrested. No one can find out about this until we know more. What do we do?

These are just a few of the kinds of questions that trusted counsel gets asked.  But trust, particularly the kind of trust we’re talking about here, carries a high price tag: independence and objectivity.  How can you trust my opinion about whether an acquisition offer is fair to the Company if the investors pushing you to sell have me on speed dial, and just sent me an invitation to their pool party? How can you trust me to give an honest assessment of a term sheet, or even a comparison of one term sheet v. another, if I’ve closed 20 deals for the VCs who submitted one of those term sheets, and have 3 more in the works? You are one deal. They are 25. Lawyers aren’t that bad at math.

Let’s be real: you can’t. Not possible. Founders know it, and in a world in which so many lawyers have given into the incestuous biz dev practice of playing both sides of the VC table, the result is a deep cynicism toward startup lawyers. Do I choose X firm or Y firm? Whatever. They’re all the same. I’ll just go with the cheaper one, or whatever one makes closing my financing easier. Some lawyers who regularly represent startups have even strategically made VC fund formation a core component of their firm. Smooth.

What “Alignment” Really Means

To the majority of lawyers (outside of the startup space) and investors (outside of the startup space), the above views are totally uncontroversial.  Make sure your own lawyers are independent and objective? Umm, yeah, thanks Captain Obvious. And even within the smaller sphere of startup/VC work, I know several investors and lawyers who draw a hard, ethical line to ensure that their reputation is not muddied in the pursuit of short-term revenue. If their investor-client is investing in a startup, they don’t shimmy over to the other side of the table with a smile on their face and a conflict waiver in-hand. They insist that the startup get their own lawyers. Trusted counsel.

But then there are the other people. “Deals get done faster” – “Startups save money on legal fees” – and (my favorite) “We’re all really aligned here, so why do we need two sets of lawyers?” Seriously?

I like to take complex issues and distill them into very simple statements totally free of B.S., so here’s one for you: when someone buys your startup for $200MM, there’s ultimately two places that money can go: in your pocket (and of your co-founders, team, etc.), or the pocket of your investors.

What was that about “alignment” again? And to be clear, the price tag gets negotiated in the acquisition, but guess where the % distribution between Pocket A and Pocket B gets largely negotiated? Financings. 1% of $200MM is $2 million.  So you’re negotiating whether millions of dollars in an exit will go into founders’ pockets or VCs pockets, and you’re telling founders they should just use the VC’s lawyers to close the round – because it saves maybe $10-20K in legal fees? Right. Thanks for ‘looking out’ on the legal budget.

Founders and their investors have shared interests in building a highly successful, profitable company. That much is doubtlessly true. But anyone who uses “alignment” as a justification for founders not worrying about the independence of their company’s lawyers is either (a) totally lying or (b) laughably lacking in even a basic understanding of human nature. 

This is not to say at all that founder-investor relations should be viewed as adversarial. Clearly not. I’m all for honesty, respect, transparency, and the like in company-investor relations.  It’s an important long-term relationship.  However, healthy relationships are built on reality. And the reality is that VCs have limited partners for whom they are legally obligated to maximize returns. It doesn’t at all make them bad people. It just means that they, like the rest of us, have a job to do. They are not your best friends, they are not your mom, and they are most certainly not fully “aligned” with the company’s economic interests. Hire your lawyers accordingly.

Drawing a Firm Line

In Austin, you frequently hear the mantra “be authentic.” No, not authentic in some anti-corporate, hipster sense, but “be who you say you are. do what you say you’re going to do.” Don’t hide behind excuses like “this is how it’s always been done before,” or “this is how the game has to be played.” Change the game. Rewrite the rules.

A while back the tech/vc attorneys at E/N sat down together over lunch to discuss the above issue. We’ve all dealt with it at prior firms we worked at, and there was no possible way of doing anything about it there. But there’s a funny thing about leaving big, corporate environments for smaller, focused firms (like startups) – it’s much easier to establish a set of firm principles, infuse them into the group’s culture, and protect them as the group grows.  And here we are: E/N, as a firm, does not and will not play both sides of the Tech VC table.

Everyone here understands it, is committed to it, and anyone who wants to join the firm will have to as well. And many of our clients are well aware of high-profile early-stage investors whom we’ve, politely, chosen not to represent as a result of this policy. Loss in short-term revenue? Sure.  But this is a long-term play. Rather than following other lawyers and firms in chasing anyone who will write us a check, we believe deeply in preserving our clients’ trust, and have chosen to bet on it.  If you want a paper pusher, I’m happy to make some recommendations. We provide legal counsel.