* VC funded company
* 24 employees
* <80th percentile of SFBA burn rate (ie: in Portland)
It doesn't matter how the VCs feel about the company. 30MM is not a very lucrative outcome for that company, mathematically.
You can make 30MM be an amazing outcome, but not if you bought yourself to an exit at barely-profitable on 6MM annual revenue using VC money.
30MM is a fantastic outcome for a bootstrapped company.
-- Set us back by 6-18 months. One of the decisions forced on us by the VCs was to build on top of [another one of their portfolio companies technologies, we'll call it FOO], but FOO didn't have the performance or features we needed. Literally lost at least half a year on the product because of this (And a whole lot of money paid to FOO and their consulting arm.)
-- Forced us to sell before we were ready. When the economy looked like it was turning the VCs needed to raise cash to make their funds look successful, and decided that we weren't going to get 5 years after investment, since they could offload us now for a nice multiple they did so.
It happens this company could have gone without the VC round and bootstrapped its way. If it had done so, it probably would have exited for around $1B, maybe much more given that it was kicking google's ass.
There's not a lot you can do as an employee about mismanagement that results in crappy outcomes. But it's an orthogonal concern to how equity is allocated. The commenter upthread was right when they said: part of your job as an employee is to pick the right company to work for.
The reality is, VCs are herd animals, and when the herd is spooked they make a lot of stupid decisions.
I've seen this more than once-- a later company was forced to sell for $10M, by the VCs, during another "oh the money spigot might be turning off!"
It is not an orthogonal concern-- how was I to know the VCs were going to screw us over? The return would have been dramatically better if that hadn't happened.
So the lesson learned is-- the right company to work for is one where the founders either don't take VC money or are very distrustful of VCs and only take it on favorable terms.
Nobody is entitled to venture capital. Plenty of people start companies without it.
From a founder view, we shouldn't be carrying the weight of the effective cost of the fact that the VCs can't pick companies worth a damn and want to make it up on us, if we happen to be good.
Nobody is entitled to venture capital, and starting a company without it is a good idea.
And VCs are not entitled to more equity & control than makes economic sense for the founders. That's what I'm opposing, but I don't think you disagree.
People don't sell equity to VCs because they've been snake-charmed by them. They do it because if you need 2MM+ for your company, they're the only realistic option. Ever talk to a bank about a line of credit against receivables? That's a fun conversation.
I think the question of what is a good return these days is a bit crazy. For this size company VC's should be looking at wanting a $150-300m exit on the low end. But unicorns are polluting this kind of idea.
For non-VC funded (bootstrapped, etc.) it's about an expected sale price for an established minimally growing company.
VCs can want $100M or $1B, but it was the VCs that chose to sell this company for $30M when it could have been $300B
Here's the ground truth: VCs are idiots. Yes, that one too.
They have money, though, so people pretend otherwise.
Hopefully, nobody is saying employees shouldn't be wary of VC funded companies. They definitely should.
If you take someone else's money, they should get ownership proportional to their investment, yes. Their impact on whether original management retains control should be proportional to their ownership.
The problem is, the crazy ideology of VC worship that has taken hold allows VCs to get disproportional control and chunk of the proceeds.
People are saying that founders shouldn't be wary of VCs. VC blogs are full of propaganda and rationalizations for giving them more control and more upside than is proportional to their investment. When the blogs make it to HN, the commentary is universally in support wit the rationalization that "they're taking risk, they need to protect it". They are taking a lot less risk than the founders who can only work for one company, nota portfolio... and the risk VCs are taking is covered by their equity. They don't need second and third helpings of control and equity to cover the risk.
I'm getting downvoted for saying VCs are idiots. (elsewhere people are getting upvoted for saying "Deniers are morons", so it's not the name calling. Its' the "if I can just get thur YC and get VC funding I'll have it made!" ideology that pervades HN.
No, there's a critical difference between your statement and that one: VCs are an identifiable class of people. Saying they're all idiots (something you don't know, couldn't possibly know, and indeed is not only false but obviously so) is attacking a specific group of people. "Deniers are morons", while obviously not a high-quality thing to say, is closer to a tautology. Both break the HN guidelines, but the former is worse.
This is not ideological. One needn't agree with everything every VC ever did to insist that calling them all idiots is wrong, breaks the site rules, and is correctly downvoted.
Sam once wondered whether we should make it explicitly against the HN guidelines to attack whole classes of people. At the time I said that sounded too legalistic. But it stuck in my head, and I have to say that every example I've seen come up in practice since then has suggested the value of such a rule. This is a good example.
Of course in crazy VC world this is probably supposed to be $12billion valuation or some nonsense to be worth it.