Rule 409A

I just ran into a Rule 409A question the other day, and the CEO with whom I was discussing the issue suggested I write about it.  So, here goes.

In “VC world” Rule 409A is best known for providing a safe harbor for private company valuations, and in particular the setting of strike prices for employee stock options.  If the strike price is at or above fair market value (FMV), then the grant of the option is not a taxable event as the employee is getting nothing of immediate value.  If the company conducts an outside independent valuation, then, under 409A, the burden is on the IRS to prove that the valuation was not reasonable (i.e., too low in value thereby imparting immediate taxable value to the optionee).  This safe harbor has resulted in companies spending (or, depending on your perspective, wasting) money on getting these outside independent valuations.  A whole cottage industry popped up, and the cost of a valuation is typically $4-8K.   And the company will typically get it updated yearly.

My view is that 409A is a terrible piece of legislation as applied to private companies.  I just read Jason Mendelson’s post from today and he obviously agrees.  I encourage you to read his post.

Here is one reason why 409A valuations drive people nuts.  Let’s say a given company has raised $15mm in VC funding and is generating about $3mm in revenue and starting to ramp up quickly.  Furthermore, it is in an industry where M&A transactions typically happen in the 3-4X revenue range.  That means, assuming a 1X liquidation preference, that the common stock should be worth zero NOW simply based on the fact that the aggregate liquidation preference exceeds the M&A revenue multiples.  Yet, if you get a 409A valuation done, I can almost guaranty that based on alternative valuation techniques (DCFs off projected earnings), the common stock will not be worth zero.  But heck, cannot we just call the value a penny per share and let the government collect more tax when the stock is later sold generating higher gains for the option holder?  That is Jason’s point.

I recently chatted with a lawyer for the same company as the CEO referenced above.  Here is what he told me:  the board can set the stock option price and not rely on the 409A valuation safe harbor.  But, in that case, the burden falls on the company/board to prove the reasonableness of the valuation if challenged by the IRS.  My reaction to this is “fine”.  That is risk worth taking perhaps particularly if you use the aggregate liquidation preference analysis mentioned above. Tough to argue that it is not reasonable.

Worth some thought and discussion.

Reblog – Pigs and Chickens

Just read a great post by Jeff Bussgang (Flybridge general partner).  Full title is “Why Venture Capitalists Invest in Pigs, Not Chickens“.   The point about young companies with under 40 employees not needing a COO is pretty powerful.  CEO needs to be “all in” and all over the company.  Mark Suster just wrote about this exact topic as well; his post is titled “Why Your Startup Does Not Need a COO“.   There are obviously exceptions to everything.

Good reading.

Reblog – Finance Fridays (Introducing the Cap Table and CTO)

Here is the latest edition of Finance Fridays from Brad Feld called “Introducing the Cap Table and CTO”.

Every startup needs someone to be in charge of the Cap Table.  That person is typically the inside finance person, but it does not really matter who so long is it is always current.  When I was General Counsel at a tech company during the 1999 bubble times, I kept the company’s Cap Table.  And now as a VC, I keep the Cap Table for a few of the company’s for which I am a board member.  Cap Tables can be very complex depending on the company’s financing history.

I think Brad’s post simplified a few things (a bit too much) so I will expand some here:

1.   Note how the new CTO Praveena implicitly negotiated to get her 15% founders shares after creation of the stock option pool.  This is significant because Jane and Dick took all the dilution from the option pool creation.  Brad’s post does note this, but it deserves more attention.  It demonstrates some pretty keen negotiation by Praveena.

2.  Each type and series of stock (Common, Series A, Series B, etc.) should have its own tab on the Cap Table.  Then there should be a separate tab that combines everything in one spot for a clear snap shot.

3.  Options and warrants also each need a separate tab and they are each also reflected on the combined tab.

4.  I find it useful to also track clearly on the Cap Table how much each shareholder has invested.  Brad’s post shows this for Praveena, but as you get real investors, the Cap Table needs to reflect their investment dollars clearly.  You will be asked all the time how much has been invested in your company – so good to have the right answer handy.

5.  Your cap table is one of the most important documents for your company if you are raising money.  It is all about detail and reflecting changes (like additional option grants) on a timely basis.

I have attached a basic Cap Table template here.  Cap Table Template   It reflects the points above and more.  Let me know what questions you have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Directors – How Many and Who

You are starting a company.  Let’s assume you want to raise some $$ from outside investors and/or that you think you might want to grant equity interests to employees in the future.  Based on either of these assumptions, a corporation (not a LLC) is the right entity choice for you.  Likely it will be a corporation set up in Delaware (typically referred to a DE corp).

Any corporation requires shareholders and directors.  Shareholders elect directors and directors elect officers.  A big question that company founders often have is “how many directors do I need?”  A related question is “who makes a good director”.  Here are some basic nuts and bolts answers.

1.  When you set up the DE corp initially, it is common for all the founders, assuming near equal ownership, to be board members.  So let’s go with 3 founders and so 3 directors (same people) initially.

2.  After the company raises its first equity round, to me the ideal board composition is 2 founders (with the CEO founder definitely on the board), 1 investor rep and 1 independent.  Ideally the independent director is sourced by the founders, but agreed to by everyone.  See my earlier post here.  If the independent is not found for a while after the investment closes, that is fine.  Importantly, one of the founders will be exiting the board at this point.  Typically the CEO and tech founder remain on the board, but there is no hard and fast rule on the tech founder (there is on the CEO).

3.  After the company raises its second equity round and a new investor joins the mix, the ideal board composition for me is 1 or 2 founders (with the CEO founder definitely on the board), 2 investor reps and 1 or 2 independents.  So between 4 – 6 members.  An even number is fine – if votes are not unanimous at a startup it is a signal of big problems.  So, here again, you might have a founder exiting the board.

4.  After the company raises yet additional capital it is likely that the board will get to 7 members assuming another new investor leading the round.  I would highly encourage to cap the number of directors at 7 going forward.  It gets to be an unwieldy job for the CEO to manage all the board members actively and appropriately.  Smaller is often better.  In this configuration, for example, you could have only 6 board members with the founder CEO, 3 investor reps and 2 independents.  Add another founder and you are at 7.

5.  In terms of who, let’s focus on the independents.  In my experience, the best independents are those directors that have deep operational or sales experience in the company’s space.  If you get a solid level of engagement, an independent director can end up like a fabulous extra set of hands.  They can help solve problems, makes intros, etc.  In my experience, outside board members with deep technical expertise are less valuable assuming the inside tech team is good.   Pick independents based on what you “need” to round out skill sets.

Those are my nutshell rules of thumb.  Board politics deserve a separate post for another day.  But do note that the more board members, the more politics that come into play……unfortunately.

The Question of Severance, etc.

Here is a general rule:  unless an employee has an employment contract or severance agreement providing for severance or the company’s employee handbook provides for severance, there is no severance due to a terminated employee.  The employee is “at-will” and can be terminated at any time.  BTW, I highly discourage employment agreements (except perhaps when hiring in a new CEO or other very senior person) and I also doubly highly discourage having the company’s employee handbook (if there is one) provide for severance.  From experience, the more flexibility the top level management team and Board have in dealing with terminated employees the better.

In reality, the severance issue raises its head often.  For example suppose a company had to fire its head of marketing who had done pretty good work for 3.5 years (arbitrary but meaningful time period).  Unfortunately his/her skill set did not keep up with company’s growth (or make up any other non-scandalous reason you like).  Should this employee get some severance to help them through the post-termination period?  Should the company continue to pay for health insurance for this person for a period of time?

I have discussed this with many VCs.  There is a big group that says severance should never be paid when the company is not profitable.  There is a considerable (though smaller) group that says severance should never be paid unless the employee is otherwise entitled (see above).  The reality is that every situation is different with its own set of emotions.  The emotions are a real driver in my opinion.  And obviously, it is easier to pay severance if the company has real cash flow.

My general thinking in a situation where a high ranking employee is terminated without cause is to give 1 to 3 months severance (depending on how long he/she was at the company, the employee’s actual need and the circumstances surrounding the termination).  For lower ranking employees my general thinking is none or maybe a “you are terminated and will be paid for the rest of the week”.  Also note that if an employee is terminated for cause (like stealing or harassment or other culpable conduct) the severance should be zero (and written severance agreements usually have this same “out”).

With respect to continuance of health insurance, this is a bit easier for the company to pay for a number of months b/c the amount of monthly premium is usually in the $300 to $500 range (much cheaper than the severance payment).  I can easily be persuaded to have a portfolio company pay for 6 months of insurance premiums under the right circumstances.

This is an emotional issue that merits independent thought for every high level termination.  One last critical point:  if you do pay severance, the employee should sign a broad release in exchange (releasing the company, the board, offices, etc., from all claims).