Big Startup America Announcement

I am sure that many of you know about the recently launched Startup America initiative.  You can learn more about Startup America here.

Today, Startup America announced an expansion of its program partners.  The partners are donating real services, products, training, etc.  And there are BIG dollars involved.  The full announcement is here.

I am proud of Startup America and I hope it has BIG success and impact.   The benefits would be felt by many people across the country.  This is about massive job creation and economic development.

At the same time, I have one additional suggestion for the federal government: allocate real dollars to states to invest in venture capital backed businesses, ideally via established fund managers.  Now this is self-serving.  But, considering that it would not take much investment by the government to make a huge difference (for example, $1 billion would be about 5% of the VC invested dollars in 2010), this type of direct investment approach would make a true difference.  Startups need dollars.  Allocate $20 million per state and require that it be invested within one year.  There are many ways to skin the cat.

If you ever have a chance to ring this bell (assuming you support it) please do.

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).

Should Founders Personally Guaranty Bank Loans?

“Should founders personally guaranty bank loans?”   That is actually a funny question because for early startups, the founders cannot get bank loans.   So, let’s assume that we are talking about a startup that is far enough along to get a loan (like for some equipment that can actually be a worthy secured asset).  Perhaps the company has a bit of revenue, but certainly it is not profitable.

If the company has no institutional investors, then I think fully appropriate for the founders to concede to the request (which is inevitable) and give the personal guaranty.  I have known plenty of business founders that are more than willing to do this.  They view it as a non-issue as they consider the business failing “on their nickel” anyway.  If there is no institutional money invested in the company, then the founder is typically in complete control and making the guaranty is a logical extension as the company’s pockets and the founder’s pockets are closely connected.

However, from my perspective, once a company has institutional funding, the personal guaranty dynamic changes completely.  The founder is no longer in complete control.  There are real constituents with whom the founder needs to constantly engage (i.e., the investors and board in particular).  The founder reports to the board and the board can ultimately replace the founder if necessary.  Imagine personally guarantying a loan and then being replaced?  Yikes – don’t count on the bank releasing the guaranty just because the founder is no longer an officer of the company.

The trick is getting the bank to understand the changed dynamic.  Silicon Valley Bank gets it.  They invest on the strength of the venture investors and the fact that the venture investors have a vested interest in the success of the company.  They will ask how much more dry powder the VCs have for the company prior to making the loan.

The “bank” that does not get it is the US government.  SBA programs (there are a bunch of them – the general theme is that the SBA partners with the originating bank and guarantees a large % of the loan on the bank’s books) require personal guarantees from major stockholders.  This includes founders.  It may also include VCs depending on the extent of ownership (trigger is usually 20%).  VCs cannot guaranty loans because their partnership agreements prohibit such activity.  And the founder should not be put in the position of guarantying a loan for a company where the investors have much to say about direction and control issues (which is always the case with VC investments).

Time for the SBA to wake up and take away the requirement.  It makes little sense and hinders what the SBA wants – company growth and economic development.