Chris Dixon

The risks of being a small investor in a private company

With the passage of the JOBS act, it seems that many more Americans will soon be able to buy equity in private companies. I am no expert on the law, but I have been investing in private companies for about a decade, and during that time I’ve seen many cases where large investors used financial engineering to artificially reduce the value of smaller investors’ equity. Here are a few examples.

1) Issuing of senior securities with multiple liquidation preferences. Example:

Series A: Small investor invests in $1m round, getting 1x straight preferred

Series B: Large investor invests $10m, getting 4x senior straight preferred

Company gets sold for $30m. Management gets $3m carveout, Series B investors get $27m, and Series A investors get zero.

2) Issuing of massive option grant to management along with new financing at a below-market valuation. Example:

Series A: Small investor invests in $1m round, getting 1x straight preferred for 10% of the company.

Company is doing well and is offered a Series B at a significantly higher valuation. Instead, large investor invests $5m at below-market valuation, getting 40% of the company, and simultaneously issues options worth 50% of the company to management.

Result: Series A investors are diluted from 10% to 1% of the company, even though the company was doing well and in a normal financing would have only been slightly diluted.

3) The company is actually multiple entities, with the smaller investor investing in the less valuable entity. Example:

Company has entity 1 and 2. Small investors invest in entity 1 that licenses IP from entity 2. Value of IP increases and entity 2 is sold and eventually cancels entity 1′s license, making entity 1 worthless.

4) Pay-to-play or artificially low downrounds. Example:

Series A: Small investor invests in $1m round, getting 1x straight preferred

Series B: Large investor invests $10m in pay-to-play round (meaning any investor that doesn’t participate has their preferred shares converted to common). Smaller investor doesn’t have the cash to re-invest in Series B, but deeper pocketed investors do.

Company sells for $10m. Series B investors get $10m. Series A investors get nothing.

There are ways to protect against these shenanigans. Protections can be written into the Series A financings documents (pro-rata rights, ability to block senior financings, etc). There are also some legal protections all minority investors are granted under, say, Delaware or California law. But usually even when these protections exist (and they exist far less frequently these days than in the past), smaller investors usually can’t, say, invoke blocking rights by themselves (indeed, it’s often not economically viable for smaller investors to hire lawyers to review every financing document for every company they invest in). Another way smaller investors can protect themselves is to set aside capital amounting to, e.g. 30% of every investment made, in case they need it later for defensive purposes (I do this). But in my experience this is all very complicated and difficult to execute in practice, even when the small investors are “professional” investors. I worry it will be even harder for “amateur” investors to protect themselves.

  • http://twitter.com/ScotchGuyDan Dan Bowen

    Thanks for the terror scenarios Chris…it’s enough to make one sick to their stomach.  I cannot fathom screwing investors in the methods described but clearly it happens.  Are their specific public stories one can refer to in order to see details?  After all, if some monster VC was doing deals like this that crushed early investors I’d never want to approach them regardless of their importance.  Second, founders that didn’t insist on protecting their early investors would have an equally radioactive aura about them to me and I wouldn’t turn my back on anyone who didn’t protect those that got them started. I’ve taken two investments in my previous ventures and my first priority when cash was available or the exit arrived was to ensure they were taken care of…I simply can’t imagine doing anything other than that.

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      Unfortunately most of this stuff is just inside baseball stuff that never becomes public (unless there is a lawsuit, which is rare in the startup world). I agree that trust in founders is the #1 protection for small investors. Sometimes this stuff happens, though, when founders are either gone (fired or fatigued) or in such a distressed scenario they have no choice but accept the terms to keep the company going. This stuff is far more frequent in a down cycle (I saw it a lot more 2003-6 or so).

      • Anonymous

        So what you are saying is that there should be a “no NDA if we screw you” clause, or it’s time for something like thefunded.com for small investors. The private club of “those in the know” doesn’t scale very well.

        • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

          NDA’s aren’t the issue here (angel investors aren’t usually under NDA). More that when the last wave of this stuff happened angels didn’t really have a way to publicize things (pre-blogs, twitter etc) and also if you want to keep investing you don’t want to alienate the big VCs. But perhaps something like thefunded could be helpful.

  • http://wac6.com/ William Carleton

    Equity crowdfunding will fail or be disreputable if standard deal terms aren’t developed and enforced that are fair to the crowdfunders, both on the downside, and on whatever collars are put on the upside. One idea I like, is the notion that in any recap scenario, crowdfunders must be bought out at 4x to 6x their investment. The balance struck here is that investors can see liquidity, while entrepreneurs going to the next level aren’t precluded from cleaning up their cap tables. The portals will have to develop and enforce sound, simple terms, that don’t vary from company to company.

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      Thanks William. I agree- some sort of standard terms need to be developed that cover both the crowdfunding round and follow on rounds. I don’t see how else this works. Do you think it requires regulation or could be enforced through market mechanisms – e.g. popular crowdfunding platforms only allow deals that adhere to certain practices.

      • http://wac6.com/ William Carleton

        Chris, market mechanisms, I think. The portals that want crowdfunding issuers and the entire equity crowdfunding industry to succeed – and there are a bunch of these; the crowdfunding advocates include some really passionate, idealistic people – will essentially have to say to entreprenuers, look, of course our terms are going to have an entreprenuer friendly tilt, and everyone will understand that and want it to be that way; but the whole program fails if investors end up getting played. Ergo, you will set up your entity this way, you will have founders on reverse testing, you will have these ip assignments into the company, you will have a simple 1 x liquidation preference, your cap table will be within the following parameters, etc. That is probably also the only way there can be meaningful disclosure to such a broad base of potential investors.
        The current paradigm of securities regulation – information must be categorical, tightly controlled and vetted by lawyers – is so poorly suited to the actual genius and dynamic of crowdsourcing, that it will be a wonder if the advocates can make the JOBS Act crowdfunding exemption work. My own opinion is that the Senators who worked to upend the House version of equity crowdfunding were no fans of the concept at all, and ultimately mean to make it part of state blue sky regulation. One quick example. Whereas the House bill said that the crowdfunded company must have a place on its website where the investors could communicate with and among the company and each other, the Senate and ultimately final version of crowdfunding said no such thing and furthermore that investor privacy must be protected.

        —–Original message—–

  • Anonymous

    Chris

    You have really seen this kind of maneuvering frequently? Scenarios 1,3 and 4 seem to represent situations where the companies we’re doing poorly, or else the financings would provided better terms. Is this interpretation right? In these cases, where the larger investors are taking on greater risks, why should they seek to protect previous (small or large) investors who don’t continue to invest? Seems unfair to give anyone the equivalent of a free ride. In scenario 2, I can’t imagine how a board could support that type of deal – the liability would be tremendous. These types of situations in my experience (16 years of VC) are rare and underscore the need to choose the investing syndicates well and to have independent board members who act as impartial shareholder advocates when these situations arise.

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      Mostly saw these during the last downturn, but did see one actually happen in just the last 2 months and an attempt at one of them very recetly but the founders blocked it. I assume they will come back next downturn.

      Downrounds happen, but good VCs do a “rights offering” (offering any of early investors to reinvest) to protect themselves from lawsuits, and smart angels have preserved defensive capital so they can participate.

  • http://berislav.lopac.net Berislav Lopac

    I’ve been arguing that crowsdourcing is a very wrong and unnecessary way to fund startups. My logic is this: If you’re developing a product that can make a number of people excited enough to be willing to give you money to develop it, why would you want to make them your shareholders (and thus reduce your equity) when you can make them your customers and just deliver the product once it’s done, with a special bonus to award their early support (e.g. three-months’ service for the price of one, two widgets for the price of one etc)?

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      I suspect there might be room for both models, assuming all the complexities and dangers of crowdfunding via equity can be worked out.

      • http://berislav.lopac.net Berislav Lopac

         In my opinion, that’s a pretty big assumption. Even in the world of public investing, after centuries of regulations, not all dangers have been worked out, and I’m personally a bug fun of less regulation rather then more. With the simple commercial approach, we already have most of the regulation in place (with customer protection laws), and no regulation will ever be perfect.

        • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

          You might be right. I guess in one scenario we find that to protect investors you have to keep adding rules, and the next thing you know you’ve replicated all the regulations we have in the public markets.

  • Pingback: The risks of being a small investor in a private company – Chris Dixon | Inbound.org

  • Pingback: » The risks of being a small investor in a private company

  • http://kidmercury.posterous.com/ kidmercury

    no worries! i’m all about planning for doomsday scenarios but the downside of crowdfunding is vastly overblown. consider:

    1. from the perspective of disruptive theory i think crowdfunding will help entrepreneurs that currently are pursuing opportunities too small to be of interest to accredited investors. so i don’t think accredited investors will compete with crowdfunding for a while. we are the commoners in coach, you are the high rollers in first class….we’re just here to gather the crumbs you throw away; you guys can keep the gourmet meal for yourself, laughing at the mere peasants who desperately invest in non-ivy league entrepreneurs with no track record pursuing small markets. at least that’s how it begins…..

    2. it is the job of the crowdfunding platform to protect its investors. i find it highly probable that the winner of the crowdfunding market will do a better job of protecting investors than the SEC does, which is captive to goldman, jpm, etc. 

    so no worries, accredited investors! just go back to smoking cubans and counting your benjamins. if any entrepreneurs come through your door that you find to be pathetic and unworthy of bazillion dollar valuations you seek, just laugh them out of your office and send them our way.   

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      That wasn’t my point at all. you think it’s wrong to share your learnings about something with other people?

      • http://kidmercury.posterous.com/ kidmercury

        lol no worries i was just joking…..looks like it came off wrong. my serious point was that i don’t think crowdfunding is significantly exposed to the risks you highlighted because i think crowdfunding will find its home in markets that larger funds are not really participating in, and that crowdfunding platforms will provide sufficient regulation. everything else was just my off center sense of humor….apologies if it was offensive, as that was not my intent. i don’t view accredited investors negatively and like your blog and the knowledge you share — that is why i subscribe via RSS. 

        • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

          no worries :) I guess I was assuming companies might get crowdfunded at early stages and then if they are doing well big VCs might get involved and shenanigans might ensue.

          • http://kidmercury.posterous.com/ kidmercury

            i consider it reasonably probable there will be an scenario like airbnb-gate in which some entrepreneur gets totally screwed after graduating to a big VC and then the crowdfunding platform has to do some serious damage control and implement policies to prevent such disasters going forward. 

  • http://demo.favorly.com/ Brandon Burns

    this may be relevant to investors on your level, but do you think it applies to the soon-to-be new crop of investors via the JOBs act? i’m not sure joe schmoe with a couple hundred bucks to back a friend or passion project is thinking in those terms. but maybe he is? who knows.

    nevertheless, this information should be in everyone’s hands. first time i’ve read examples like this, outside of seeing eduardo get screwed on The Social Network. hopefully, in addition to posts like these, the new crowdfunding sites do their due diligence to educate their prospective clients.

  • Anonymous

    so simple question from a newbie: how protected then the angels of Facebook & google their investments in the beginning? the saga in both cases is like “instant check” (ok in the case of google) – thanks a lot!

    • http://www.cdixon.org chris dixon

      I don’t know the details of Facebook, but Google did an upround with well known VCs and trustworthy founders and did very well.

  • Guest

    so simple question from a newbie: how protected then the angels of Facebook & google their investments in the beginning? the saga in both cases is like “instant check” (ok in the case of google) – thanks a lot!

  • Pingback: Families That Cheat Investors Together, Stay Together

  • Pingback: The risks of being a small investor in a private company – Chris Dixon « Tom Denison's Blog

  • Pingback: Aktuelles 27. April 2012

  • http://www.justanentrepreneur.com Philip Sugar

    Great post.  Love your examples.  Its why I tell people that unless you are common shares for cash, taking your percentage and multiplying by the valuation is worthless.

  • Pingback: Frederic Destin

  • Pingback: Kauffman and Wilson Redux: The Singularity hits Venture Capital | Frederic Destin

  • Pingback: The Singularity hits Venture Capital (Wilson/Kauffman Redux) | Frederic Destin

  • Pingback: Delaware Campaign Database•Delaware Registered Voters List•Voter Database

  • Pingback: Delaware Voter Registration List•Uncategorized•Voter Database

  • Pingback: Hazards of Being a Small Investor | AccidentalCapitalist

  • Pingback: Delaware Voter Registration List•Delaware Registered Voters List•Voter Database

  • Pingback: Registered Voters in Delaware•Delaware Registered Voters List•Voter Database

  • Pingback: Political Consulting Firms in Delaware – Campaign Tools•Delaware Registered Voters List•Voter Database

  • Pingback: Porqué entrar el primero y salir el primero en una startup | La Pastilla Roja