alt Hacker NewsI've heard variations on this sentiment repeated a lot. The exact message varies, but it's usually some variation of: early investors always lose, small investors always lose, and/or non-preferred shareholders always lose. I've seen and lived a small number of personal anecdotes that seem to back this up, and I'd like to better understand what underlying pathology causes this.
I understand that early investors are taking the most risk, and clearly there's a lot of downside. But what prevents them from being able to realize or capture the upside?
I've heard a theory, a few different times now, that bigger, later investors effectively collude (descriptive term, not value judgment) with founders to squeeze out early founders and employees (common shareholders) via unfair terms, such as excessive dilution (accepting too low a valuation for larger investment), excessive liquidation preferences (2x or more), etc., and then topping the founders up via side deals. I've heard that, by virtue of squeezing out passive participants, they're able to offer more to the founders, and that incentivizes the founders to take their deal over other alternatives. Does anyone know more specifics about how this happens? In particular, how is this not a breach of fiduciary duty to passive participants?
It's definitely possible to write anti-dilution clauses, etc. But, I've heard that more or less no one writes them, and more importantly no one accepts them. If this is a pretty well-known game, why haven't countermeasures become popular?
For my personal anecdote, I was once an early engineer - the first hire after their Series A - at a small startup that never found product-market fit. The economy was bad, and they were running out of money, and they took - as I understood it - a dubious Series B led by a dubious investor. The founders were very vague about the terms of the round. In particular, the founders revealed that the investors took liquidation preference, that it was greater than 1x, but absolutely refused to say how much. That always left a bad taste in my mouth. When I left, I didn't exercise my options. In the end, the company floundered, and is a zombie to this day. In that regard, I suppose that the particulars of that round don't really matter - none of us were seeing anything regardless.
I'd really appreciate if anyone closer to the money part of this industry could weigh in.
Replies
It's people who lose, which is most, complaining about structural issues when actually they just suck at investing. It's a competitive game, they lost.
> later investors effectively collude with founders
> a small startup that never found product-market fit. The economy was bad, and they were running out of money, and they took - as I understood it - a dubious Series B led by a dubious investor
The unfortunate reality is that if a startup cannot survive for long on its own, the economy is bad, and investment interest is low - then past invested effort from founders and employees and money from early investors is a sunk cost. They have together created something with almost no independent economic value.
The later investors can buy the assets created so far at near zero cost (the alternative is a bankruptcy auction). They can reasonably argue that the future value of the business is all from their investment, together with a deal to hire the founders and current employees to invest future effort into it.