Posts tagged as:

tips

Here’s a common set of angel-investor questions regarding a standard seed round term sheet for a tech company:

  1. Why are the shares divided into preferred and common?
  2. Why does the preferred stock have a limited “1x” return?
  3. What will happen with liquidation preferences in future rounds?
  4. What will happen with dividends?
  5. Does the preferred stock have to convert to common to get more than its money back? Why? How?
  6. Don’t these restrictions make preferred shares seem less “good?”

The short answer is that this is a standard seed round term sheet that balances all the issues in a reasonable industry-standard way that won’t hamstring follow-on rounds. What that means is that venture investors, and also their lawyers, expect to see companies with a structure that is within the normal variation of such things. The standard, as I’ve written before, is to see a Delaware C-corp with a reasonable division of equity among the founders, some sort of vesting, a clean balance sheet, and a reasonably clean cap table overall. Complications on any of these points can arise, and some variation is certainly common, and some variation is actually meaningful, purposeful, and beneficial to the company.

Of course there are two positions on each of these kinds of issues, but if you think about contracts as mechanisms for transferring risk from one party to another, then some structures make less sense because they’re economically inefficient by  not assigning a risk of loss to the person best able to prevent that loss.

Here are some longer and more precise answers:

  1. Preferred and common shares — this is the traditional structure for venture-financed companies. The two classes of stock help fine-tune the relationship between the investors and the founders in light of the risk/rewards appropriate for each. Preferred stock allows certain holders, i.e., the investors, to receive their investment back before any return accrues to the other holders, i.e., the founders. This is the general practice. The use of preferred stock also provides other high-level protections to investors even if they own less than a majority of the company, which would not be the case if they only held common stock; there are similar protections for founders holding common stock even if the preferred stock holders own a majority of the company on a fully diluted basis.
  2. The upside on the preferred shares is not limited. It is a 1x non-participating preferred. This means that the preferred stock holders have an option in the event of a liquidation event of some kind: (a) take their money back or (b) convert to common stock. The choice means that holders of preferred stock will, in the event the company is sold very early, not face a situation where they lose money and the founders make money.
  3. It is the company’s goal, and standard in the tech industry for venture-financed companies, to maintain the 1x non-participating preferred structure. Whether those terms would vary in the future for a round of venture financing with particular investors cannot be determined. But the protections of current preferred stock holders to approve certain additional issuances of preferred stock generally acts to prevent unfair future sales of stock.
  4. It is the company’s goal, and standard in the tech industry for venture-financed companies, to not actually declare and issue dividends. The basic assumption is that at the discount rates implicit in angel and venture valuations, it makes more sense for the relatively small amount of cash that dividends would represent to remain invested in the company for a far greater return. Also, since few early stage companies are producing cash, dividends are generally not distributions of free cash flow but just a deduction from cash on the balance sheet. That’s a very different corporate finance strategy, one that most startup CFOs would not suggest. The same points as it #3 regarding future rounds apply here except that dividend provisions rarely change; liquidation preferences are more likely to be different from round to round.
  5. Yes, conversion to common is generally deemed to occur immediately prior to the closing of the liquidity event, e.g, a merger or IPO. The specifics are spelled out in the transaction documents; the general format can be seen in the Series Seed documents linked below.
  6. Preferred shares are always thought of as better because they are protected on the downside. See Fred Wilson’s example in his post linked below for the basic scenario in which preferred stock investors are protected. As a general rule of thumb, in the absence of particularized 409A valuations, common shares are thought to be “worth” approximately 10% of the value of preferred shares; this ratio reflects the partial protection against downside risk that is the preferred return.

Some links:
Series Seed documents

Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures discussing the liquidation preference: he discusses the point often on his blog; it could be helpful to read his comments.

{ 0 comments }

Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures wrote about his board meeting and ugly travel schedule some time ago. It’s refreshing to hear him talk about being excited to go to board meetings. I’ve sat in too many where a VC (even a monster big-name guy) ended up talking about the format of financials being presented rather than the critical sales pipeline issues facing the company. That’s what junior folks at a venture firm should be doing as well: channeling portfolio company reporting into preferred formats. I think that the lead investor should basically give/mandate an initial board presentation structure to the CEO that can evolve over time.

Startup board packages should be 80% straightforward, easy to update materials: financials, sales pipelines, technical milestone progress, option grants, etc. — it’s data/information. The remaining 20% is what the management team should be working on — knowledge & questions. That 20% will vary from company to company, from VC to VC even, but it will almost certainly revolve around these three major themes:

1. the allocation of capital (of all kinds) across the strategic and tactical opportunities in front of the company
2. the status of execution against the opportunities being pursued
3. the identification of any roadblocks to execution and success that the board can affect

Sharing the weekly version of your 3x5x15 staff planning tool is one simple, low-overhead way to keep the board apprised of ongoing developments without overloading them with details or inviting discussion on minor points.

Focusing on giving the board decisions to make, rather than topics to discuss, will make everyone more productive, improve the quality of the interaction, and improve overall results. There’s no issue that can’t be handled in a single meeting that should be brought up for discussion in the meeting; what this means is that as things percolate, the management team member responsible needs to *write* up an information brief to highlight the concerns and issues. (Yes, it has to be written, e.g., in a document, not a presentation, to clarify the message with the appropriate level of detail and background and allow it to be digested over time.) Then, once the informal discussions, generally outside of the board meeting schedule, have taken place, someone should write up and present a decision briefing, the purpose of which is to give the board the issues, a recommendation, and seek a decision. This structure works wonders in clarifying issues and bringing ideas together.

Decide, don’t discuss. That’s the way to rock a board meeting.

{ 0 comments }

Draft better contracts by paying attention to words

12 October 2010

This post on the use of the term immediately, one of many similar explorations by Ken Adams, is the sort of thing that attracts me to contract drafting. There is a lot to be said for using the right language to convey an idea: language that is clear, concise, hard to misconstrue, and simple without [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: What is due diligence?

9 August 2010

Due diligence is the catchall phrase used to describe both the amorphous investigative process that prospective investors and acquirors go through before, during, and after their initial decision to proceed with a transaction with your company as well as the materials (paper, electronic, and Q&A) that they and their advisors receive in response to their [...]

1 comment Read more ›

New page of observations

27 November 2009

Following in the footsteps of giants, I’ve decided to create a separate page to track my notes on shared items from Google Reader. One reason for this is to encourage me to comment on GReader items rather than save them until I have time to write full-fledged blog posts. The only issue I see with [...]

0 comments Read more ›

Five-minute general counsel: licensing audits

8 October 2009

Kat Shoa asked about licensing audits on LinkedIn: How do you know if your IP licensees are paying you properly? I sat on a presentation about royalty audits today and think it’s a fantastic to collect due royalties – wrote about it here[.] But I’d be interested to know what other methods are used to [...]

0 comments Read more ›

How to use venture capital “check the box” forms

12 August 2009

Writing about Ted Wang’s “simple series A” reminded me of this idea I came up with years ago. One alternative to drafting that I’ve always liked: “check the box” forms.” During any moderately stable period in Silicon Valley, certain terms become “market,” meaning that there’s little real dispute about them in substance and only some [...]

0 comments Read more ›

How to improve team productivity with simple SOPs

27 March 2009

Gina Trapani, formerly of Lifehacker, recently posted this picture and the accompanying text. It’s a short set of rules that are, in effect, a simple team SOP (standard operating procedure). With even a small set of agreements about how they will operate, expectations and execution will more closely match up. When these rules are known [...]

1 comment Read more ›

Improve your personal branding by separating your blogs

18 February 2009

In a recent conversation at a business breakfast roundtable at the Cornell Club in NYC, a question was asked about blogging, and I volunteered a brief description of my blogging activities. If you are blogging about multiple issues, you should consider separating your blog writing into categories to improve or reinforce your personal branding. Leading [...]

3 comments Read more ›

Clean up your writing by eliminating deadwords

23 January 2009

Eliminate words no one uses from your writing to make it flow more smoothly.

0 comments Read more ›