[HN Gopher] How much do founders pay themselves? A European data... ___________________________________________________________________ How much do founders pay themselves? A European data set Author : vinnyglennon Score : 172 points Date : 2022-03-01 14:01 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (sifted.eu) (TXT) w3m dump (sifted.eu) | holoduke wrote: | In my last +10m startup I received a management fee of 6000 | euro's a month. It was considered by all investors as a normal | salary. Yet it was the lowest in the company. And of course the | tax authority asked us questions about it. Afraid that I would | lower my salary to a minimum and receive high dividends. I am | located in the Netherlands. | milansm wrote: | Is lowering the salary and receive high dividends illegal in | Holland? | ricardobeat wrote: | (Disclaimer: not a founder or tax expert here) | | There are a bunch of rules, all aiming at making sure as a | company director you can't qualify for any government | benefits, and income is taxed in box 1 (income from | employment) which has the highest rate. | | First is a minimum of EUR45k, then you can't be paid less | than your highest paid employee, for an LLC you need to pay | yourself at least 75% of profits. There's probably more to | stop creative accounting and ensure the first chunk of money | is always taxed as personal income. | mtgx wrote: | Traster wrote: | Nice little subtle marketing from Graphy there. In the first | paragraph he's just a random CEO giving a quote, then you click | through to the survey and turns out it's by SeedCamp powered by | Graphy. Oh and _then_ it turns out that Graphy is one of the | companies that SeedCamp seeded. | | Putting that aside, I think big chunks of this article are trying | to draw conclusions from tiny datasets that might not stand up. | For example, the chart showing "Average Number of Employees By | Annual Salary" is very clearly just a line connecting the | individual data points, that should be a scatter plot with a | trend line most likely, and what it shows is that most of the | companies consist of only the founding team. Or the bar chart of | number of founders vs CEO salary - I think they've sliced that | data into so many buckets (4 buckets, 3 groups, N=200) that | probably the variance between the groups is just noise. | tbarbugli wrote: | I also suspect the dataset is too small to be relevant. | | eg. there are no companies that raised an A and have 10+ ARR in | EU | batterylow wrote: | First I'm hearing of Graphy... it's just my lucky after | launching https://PlotPanel.com yesterday! My salary throughout | was PS0! | sireat wrote: | PlotPanel looks quite nice for a launch, congrats! (Graphy | looks decent too) | | For those who work with Python it is hard to beat plotly.js | for front end because it transfers almost directly to | whatever plots you are doing in your notebooks. Extremely | customizable and also powerful. | | Well one downside to Plotly is that it is quite heavy about | 3-4MB. Couldn't figure out a way to separate different graph | types. | Shindi wrote: | I know that sinking feeling you're feeling after discovering | a successful competitor but you can totally crush Graphy. | Just make sure to differentiate. | | Even if not, you could eat a large piece of the pie. | batterylow wrote: | Thank you! I'll be taking a step back to figure out how to | move forward... Marketing isn't my strength and I'm solo, | but hopefully I can get the word out! | mwint wrote: | Your marketing page is beautiful, kudos. | batterylow wrote: | That's made my day, thank you! | wongarsu wrote: | How does the average founder in a four-founder startup hold | 31.79% of equity after the pre-seed round? (from the "Impact of | the number of co-founders on equity" graph). Am I reading that | wrong, or is their sample too small or heavily skewed? | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > How does the average founder in a four-founder startup hold | 31.79% of equity after the pre-seed round? | | How does the average founder in a 4-founder startup hold more | than 1/4 of the equity _at all_? Something is wrong with this | stat. | Wilduck wrote: | I noticed this too. I think the charitable way to read this | is: "The average survey respondant who is part of a 4-founder | startup" and that the survey was biased towards responses | from founders with larger equity stakes in their companies. | nicksalt wrote: | You should pay yourself replacement value. | | What would you need to pay to replace the closest version to you | at the stage of the company u are at. | 6510 wrote: | Or what you would earn elsewhere. | consp wrote: | Depending on the type of company, in some countries in the EU | there is a required minimum depending on company age for the | Founders. This might skew the lower bound a bit (if they included | those). | Cenk wrote: | Here are the actual survey results: https://seedcamp.com/start- | up-founder-compensation-survey/ | mountainofdeath wrote: | It's for this reason I consider being an investor a much stronger | position than a founder and orders of magnitude better than an | early employee. | | As an investor, you have information that only you are founders | are privy to. You can continue drawing a salary in whatever your | day job is. At the end of the day, your loss is limited to the | money you put in and the relatively low time investment. A | founder gives up all of their time and near term compensation for | a lottery ticket. For people already on a good trajectory, | anything but a stellar exit is probably a net loss. For early | employees, it almost always is a loss. | TameAntelope wrote: | Well yeah, it's hardly revelatory that having money puts you in | a better position than not having money. The scale of privilege | is obviously going to favor people who can invest in risk | rather than rely on risk. | motohagiography wrote: | Worth noting that there isn't a time dimension on the X axis | other than funding round interval, as when you average that comp | over the 3-5 years it takes to get from seed to A, and then from | A to eventual dilution and exit, the average compensation is | significantly lower than the high watermark number for | salary/comp package. | karim79 wrote: | In my case, I got a clued-up response from my lawyers, as to what | I should pay myself from my in-profit startup, that is accepted | by the German government and fair to the shareholders of my/our | company. That was helpful. I think it is fair to be fair and on | the right side of morality, ethics, and the law. | duckmysick wrote: | Can you expand on this? It would be cool to hear the details, | especially from a non-US country. | karim79 wrote: | I can try. In Germany, as a soul proprietor, one can pay | himself as much as is available in terms of revenue, minus | taxes and costs of doing business. As a private shared | company, which is my case, it's a bit different. The | compensation of the CEO (myself) needs to be fair to the | shareholders and the founders and somehow scientifically | balanced (also in terms of what is perceived to be the | "correct" compensation for such a role or endeavour, which | includes having to answer to everything, government, | customers, employees, all the things basically come together | from case history and you get a number which is the "seal" | for the role. It's interesting, to say the least. I happen to | think it actually works. | vincentmarle wrote: | There's a similar minimum CEO wage requirement for limited | companies in the Netherlands ( _DGA salaris_ ) but the | reason is not so altruistic as you make it seem: the reason | is that dividends are taxed lower than income, so they want | to make sure you pay enough taxes on regular income first | before you can enjoy the benefit of the lower dividend tax. | auggierose wrote: | That's why there are so many great startups from Germany. | ricardobeat wrote: | N26, GetYourGuide, Gorillas, Flink, Grover, Blinkist, | Lillium, Zalando, HelloFresh, Delivery Hero, Home24, | Trivago, SoundCloud... yeah that's clearly not working! | auggierose wrote: | That does not sound very impressive. | CedarMills wrote: | I made the mistake of paying myself too much after fundraising | round and then too little in order to extend runway. Nothing is | more stressful when you have less than three months of runway | left and you have absolutely no saving and have a family and | mortgage. | | For my next startup, I will try to bootstrap as much as I can | first, and then pay myself a livable salary so that I'm not | distracted by looking for others sources of income / radically | downgrading my lifestyle. | kavalg wrote: | From the data it looks like they get more or less an average | market salary for e.g. architect, team lead, project manager | position. What really surprised me was the equity that they keep | until series A (below 20%). I expected something at least around | 35% for a successful startup that even makes it to series A. | sam0x17 wrote: | From what I've seen anything over 5% is usually ridiculous. At | least for startups on a track to a billion $ valuation, most | startups of this caliber (or that see themselves as being of | this caliber, key point) will be in situations where each | cofounder has 1-2% at most and the rest is kept aside for later | rounds, employees, eventually going public, etc. Your mileage | may vary, but that is what I've seen. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > What really surprised me was the equity that they keep until | series A (below 20%). I expected something at least around 35% | for a successful startup that even makes it to series A. | | Keep in mind that it's common to have at least one cofounder. | Some times more. Start with 3 cofounders and an equal split and | already nobody can have more than 33% of the company. | | The term "Series A" has also become kind of diluted away by a | growing list of earlier rounds: Angel, pre-seed, seed, etc. | It's getting kind of funny to see how much fundraising a | company can do before "Series A" these days. | | Equity is a tough topic to think about because everyone expects | to have a lot, but numerically a startup with multiple | cofounders and multiple investment rounds and an employee | option pool and equity for early hires will end up with a lot | of entries on the cap table. It becomes difficult for any one | person to have >20% equity very quickly in most cases. | | At startups I often had to explain this to early but post- | investment hires who expected 10% or more equity for themselves | on top of market rate salaries. Unfortunately the equity gets | spread across a lot of different parties. | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | It's crazy that Elon Musk still has 17 percent of Tesla and | founders are giving away more than that just by series A. | | Is it because they are not creating anything truly unique | with great market pull? | whatshisface wrote: | It is because they aren't self-funding in the way that an | ex-Paypal billionaire can. Elon Musk started Tesla with | enough money to be a VC himself, but put it in to his own | companies. | | Normal SWEs can follow this example by saving up and being | willing to work for a big discount if it's their own | company they're working on. That's not going to let you | start a car company but for a website it might be enough. | SmellTheGlove wrote: | > Elon Musk started Tesla with enough money to be a VC | himself, but put it in to his own companies. | | Didn't he _not_ start Tesla, though? I thought he bought | his way in, and negotiated cofounder status? | duped wrote: | I'm not an expert in this, but most startups that have | tried to recruit me in series A/B have such small ambitions | (or more quantitatively, TAM) that I can understand why | investors want higher stakes. If your TAM and desired | market capture implies revenue of less than like $500 | million the company is never going to IPO, just for | example. | | Side note, as a potential employee (and a different kind of | investor) that's the determining factor in whether or not | the equity vs paycut gamble makes sense. | neilc wrote: | > If your TAM and desired market capture implies revenue | of less than like $500 million the company is never going | to IPO, just for example. | | The vast majority of tech companies that IPO have | revenues of (much) less than $500M. | KptMarchewa wrote: | Musk bought his shares at series A. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | On the investment side, seeing early founders pay themselves | similarly to their employees or slightly less was usually a good | sign that the founder was truly in it for the long term. You | don't really want founders scraping by on ramen noodles and | becoming financially desperate. | | Seeing founders pay themselves exorbitantly was not a great sign, | though. If someone is truly building a company into something | they believe to be very valuable, the salary shouldn't matter | very much beyond helping them not worry about bills while they | grow the company. | | That's all kind of obvious and well known. What I didn't know was | how the unscrupulous founders also know this very well and | instead come up with creative ways to pay themselves outside of | salary numbers. One founder liked to pay himself $100,000 | consulting fees after fundraises to "reimburse" his work done | before the raise at what he believed to be "below market rate". | It's the kind of thing that won't show up on cursory due | diligence, but will poison later rounds when investors dig into | finances and realize the CEO or other cofounders have been | quietly extracting extra money for themselves. In one case it | damaged a startup I was fond of enough that it cost the CEO | potentially millions in equity in a later acquisition that | failed. | CPLX wrote: | Someone refused to acquire a company for (presumably) tens of | millions of dollars because a founder took a below market | salary and then made up for it after a funding round with a | 100k payment? | | How did discovering this affect the acquirer's investment | thesis? Presumably they felt like the company's growth | potential and revenue was sufficient to invest many millions to | own it, but then this changed their evaluation? | | Not that I think it's best practices for a founder to do this | with investor money, but it sounds like a just-so story. | | I'm guessing there was more to it than this. It seems like VC's | always have a perfect anecdotal narrative of why it's in | everyone's best interest to do things that make the VC firm | more money. | anamax wrote: | > Someone refused to acquire a company for (presumably) tens | of millions of dollars because a founder took a below market | salary and then made up for it after a funding round with a | 100k payment? | | Yes. It goes to the CEO's honesty and character. When you | find something like this in due diligence, you start | wondering what you haven't found. | | This is somewhat similar to https://www.insider.com/van- | halen-brown-m-ms-contract-2016-9 | [deleted] | PragmaticPulp wrote: | More or less, yes. | | Although it wasn't a single $100K payment. It was a pattern | of bragging about "taking a $1 salary in the early days" | while doing essentially the opposite on the books. | | When investing you can't due diligence everything. When you | find a couple instances of the CEO telling you one thing but | then doing something else _and_ using accounting tricks hide | it, it raises red flags. It 's rarely ever just a single | lapse of judgment like that. | CPLX wrote: | Seems to me the issue is lying. | | Lying about what you did with the money is definitely a red | flag. I think any sane investor would worry about a CEO | making financial misrepresentations. But the actual | behavior of taking low compensation and then making up for | it when the company later has excess funds seems completely | defensible if it's done without deception. | ska wrote: | Agree this would (and should) raise eyebrows. If enough of | a pattern it probably makes sense to spike the deal. At | very least, it's going to change your risk profile. | vmception wrote: | My experience is that founders can have it all as long as they | can articulate what the exit strategy is. | | But I dismiss anyone in it for the long term anyway, so I'm | actually screening against that and instead of trying to figure | out how they're lying about being in their new corporate | forever home. Don't get married to positions. Different | strategy. | wpietri wrote: | Agreed. As an occasional starter of things, if I really believe | in my company, then all things considered, I'd rather have a | surplus dollar in the company, as that's where I think my | highest long-term ROI is. Early on, founders taking lots of | cash out would be a negative sign for me. The $100k because-I- | can fee strikes me as repulsively WeWork-esque. | | On the other hand, I've been reading lately about the vast | acceleration in the pace of investor money since last I did a | venture-backed startup. [1] To me this looks somewhat like the | diet of a pate goose: more to the benefit of the feeders than | the goose itself. If my investors are in it for a quick flip, I | would have to question how much I should be long-term focused. | | [1] Scroll down to "fast is in fashion" here: | https://pivotal.substack.com/p/minsky-moments-in-venture-cap... | PragmaticPulp wrote: | The "proper" way to take money off the table is for the | founders to sell some of their own equity in a secondary | sale. This way it's all above board, done in plain view of | the investors (who might buy the equity themselves), and most | importantly isn't extracting cash out of the startup. | | Investors invest in companies to give them runway and for | hiring. If the founder is extracting that money back out of | the company to line their own pockets (beyond a reasonable | salary) then it doesn't help the company at all. Founders | should be selling their equity, not withdrawing from the | company's bank accounts. | tomrod wrote: | Reasonability of salary is my approach. For S-Corps, median | of market passes the sniff test IMO. | wpietri wrote: | Oh, sure. I don't disagree. That's how I'd do it. | | But my point is that even when I last took venture money, | more than a decade ago, I had some questions about how much | the goal of investors was to "help the company". With the | way funding trends have changed, that's an even bigger | question. Which would then force me to ask: how much sense | does it make for me to be more invested in the long-term | future of the company than the investors are? | | Personally, my behavior wouldn't change. But the more | investors are in it for their short-term interests, the | more they should expect to attract founders who feel the | same way. | ed25519FUUU wrote: | > _On the investment side, seeing early founders pay themselves | similarly to their employees or slightly less was usually a | good sign that the founder was truly in it for the long term._ | | I don't know. Just seems like accounting to me. They take a | small salary but own 80% of the company you're helping build | for the same salary but 0.03% ownership. | ska wrote: | It's not just accounting, it speaks directly to the | incentives of the founders & execs and their commitment to | the long term success and growth of the company. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Outside of cofounders and founding employees (who, by | definition, joined before the company was funded and worth | more), the total employee option pool might be around 5% of | the company in an early startup. Note that it will grow in | later rounds, but dilution will reduce the share of early | employees in those rounds. | | If you hire 100 employees and split that 5% equally then you | get 0.05% per employee. What else would you propose? If you | tried to give everyone something like 0.5% then the first 100 | employees would have to own 50% of the company. Doesn't | really work. | | The earliest employees who join when company size is less | than 10 people or so, as well as key early hires like | valuable VPs will end up with higher equity, but once a | company reaches a point of paying market rate compensation | then a 0.05% equity stake isn't really unfair. | runako wrote: | It would appear there are two main avenues: | | - Don't split equity evenly across the first 100 employees. | A non-cofounding VP Engineering should probably get a | bigger stake than a non-founding customer support rep. | | - Increase the employee option pool. | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: | > If someone is truly building a company into something they | believe to be very valuable, the salary shouldn't matter very | much beyond helping them not worry about bills while they grow | the company. | | I don't get that. If someone is truly sitting on a lottery | ticket they believe to be valuable, salary still matters very | much, because there's significant irreducible risk that it | doesn't pay out. From a strictly financial perspective, it's | the same reason people don't go all in on one company in the | stock market, but rather diversify their portfolios: People | maximize risk adjusted values rather than just expected values. | xwdv wrote: | People diversify portfolios out of ignorance, not prudence. | If you don't have any special knowledge that lets you favor | one company over another, then you might as well pick a bunch | of them. But if you know one company is a good bet for | specific reasons, it makes sense to lean your portfolio | heavily on it. That is how you get so rich. | Thrymr wrote: | That is still doubling down on risk, so diversifying is | indeed prudence. Even a good bet is not a sure bet, | particularly if it has a chance of high payoff. | isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote: | Or homeless. | streetcat1 wrote: | So this is not a 0-1 game. Most of the risk in a startup (if | you dont take VC) is getting to 5K MRR - 10K MRR. Once there, | the existential risk should be reduced to zero. | | If you take VC, than there is always an existential risk, | since you are relying on new money being available for the | next round. | | Also, you diversify in the stock market mainly due to | information uncertainty. I.e. you do not have any control on | different risks (economy, company corruption, etc.). | | However, in a startup you have much more control on the | company future (again, if you DONT take VC money). | | If you take VC money, than the company is basically a | privately traded company, and you assume all the risks of a | public company. | rixrax wrote: | Assuming it is financially viable and healthy, founders should be | paid around the same as some of the more expensive hires in the | company. If the company is hiring talent that asks for e.g. 300k | total comp, but founders are left behind at say 100k, it gets | increasingly distasteful to hire people that probably should be | hired because not everyone of these 300k total comp hot shots end | up working out for the company (and need to be eventually let | go). Down the line, this in my experience leads to poor hiring | decisions where founders get increasingly frustrated of the | discrepancy between their pay and that of hired talent and start | opting for people whose ask is closer to what the founders are | being paid (when they infact should really go for the best | available talent that the company could afford). | | In early(er) stage startups the situation is of course different, | but once there is revenue and maybe larger capital injections | from VCs, it is my experience that compensation committees or who | ever is deciding founders salaries, should make sure founders are | not left too far behind compared to what new hires are being | paid. | a_c wrote: | Several thoughts | | - would love to see distribution rather average, as average is | easily skewed by outliers | | - salary Vs exit (bust, acquisition or public) | | - salary Vs employee. I was listening an episode of How I Built | This by Guy Raz. The founder of Goodreads is paying himself about | the same level as highest salary employee. I find it a good | reference | onion2k wrote: | _As can be expected, founder salaries increase as their company | goes on to raise more funding._ | | Raising takes you out of building the business and turns you into | someone who spends all their time talking to investors instead, | usually at precisely the time your business needs you to do | founder things. By hitching your pay to when you land another | round you're incentivizing raising rather than growing the | business, and that's probably a bad thing. | robbiemitchell wrote: | As you grow, a founder's job is to hire people who can build | and lead the company with you. | | Waiting for a fundraise to increase a below-market salary in an | unprofitable business is a responsible thing to do. | MayeulC wrote: | Graphs do not load for me, even with adblock disabled. Firefox. | onebot wrote: | Having done this 5x times now. My advice is the same I got from | one of my first VCs @FirstRound... | | Pay yourself as much as you need to not be distracted by anything | that would slow you down. It is different for different founders | and for whatever stage they are at in life. But if you are a | founder with a family, that is gonna be different from a founder | fresh out of college. | | Obviously you want to spend as little as possible, but not to the | detriment of you lacking focus and dedication because you can't | pay your rent. | culi wrote: | > Pay yourself as much as you need to not be distracted by | anything that would slow you down | | I'd say this goes equally for your employees, no? Pay them | enough to take money off the table | onebot wrote: | In this competitive market, you are likely paying them market | plus equity for top talent. EU is less competitive, but you | should be paying market or below market if you are augmenting | with extra equity. | andrew_ wrote: | I was recently offered a founding role. The cofounder is 14 | years younger than I. I have a family of 5, she is single and | living on a very light income. Her advisers were telling her | founders should pay themselves an amount that was approximately | 1/3 of my current take-home. The divide in stage of life and | accumulated responsibility was just too great to overcome and | we parted ways. | mywittyname wrote: | This seem so penny wise, pound foolish to me. Assuming the | long-term value difference between a great founder and a | mediocre one can be tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, | it really makes sense to spend the extra few hundred thousand | on the best cofounder available. | hwers wrote: | To me it's a sign of a lack of confidence in that long-term | evaluation and is probably a sign they don't have the right | risk attitude to be in the startup game to begin with. | SmellTheGlove wrote: | And to me its a sign of not understanding and/or not | valuing what an extra decade and a half of experience | brings to the table. Paying that cofounder more based on | their stage in life is a requisite to acquiring that | experience. | | They're both bearing the same risk, it's just quantified | differently for two people in two different life | situations. | newaccount74 wrote: | I guess it depends very strongly whether the startup | needs that experience or not. | | And to be honest, the kind of experience that someone who | worked 15 years as a developer brings to the table is | probably not going to be the kind of experience that | makes or breaks a startup. Experienced devs can bring | much more value at later stage companies, where they can | focus on the thing they are good at, rather than at an | early stage startup where the founders have a million | different responsibilities. | SmellTheGlove wrote: | > I guess it depends very strongly whether the startup | needs that experience or not. | | Well, this is in response to a post that said they had an | offer, so my presumption here is that the startup needed | that experience or they wouldn't have offered the role. | | > And to be honest, the kind of experience that someone | who worked 15 years as a developer | | The original post didn't specify whether they were a | developer, only that they were 15 years older than the | other co-founder. I'm making my own assumption about that | translating into 15 more years experience (not accounting | for breaks, back to school, whatever). | jokethrowaway wrote: | Having a developer with experience or one without is the | kind of thing that can break a startup. | | If you try to get a single junior developer to ship the | product... well, good luck with that. I can count on one | hands the people in my circle who could do that fresh out | of university. You definitely need at least a mid | developer who shipped something else - of you can just | outsource the tech side. | | When my startup was incubated there were plenty of biz | founder with a junior who couldn't ship something simple | (even a wordpress with some plugins would have worked!) | or ended up outsourcing their development (which ended up | being a way to make some income when my startup didn't go | anywhere). | andrew_ wrote: | I would argue that your take doesn't apply to T-shaped | engineers, or engineers that have been in the industry | through a multitude of technology shifts and trends. | gedy wrote: | > And to be honest, the kind of experience that someone | who worked 15 years as a developer brings to the table is | probably not going to be the kind of experience that | makes or breaks a startup. | | Hard disagree here, as many many junior devs treat | startup/greenfield work as their personal playground for | trying esoteric tech, prematurely building their own | platform, etc. | PragmaticPulp wrote: | > Paying that cofounder more based on their stage in life | is a requisite to acquiring that experience. | | The primary compensation for a founder position is the | equity stake. A co-founder would get substantial equity | (20% or more). For perspective, consider that future | investors will be pouring millions of dollars into the | company in exchange for a similarly sized equity stake. | | You need to remember that as a co-founder, they're | deciding what to pay _themselves_. The higher the base | compensation, the less runway they have and the fewer | employees they can hire. | | If someone is demanding a $450K/year base compensation as | a co-founder, they're not looking at this as a true co- | founder role. A co-founder would want to focus on equity | and take something like $150K/year so the company could | hire 1-2 additional engineers with the other $300K/year. | | If this sounds weird or unfair, then you're probably not | a good fit for a co-founder role. And that's fine! For | most people, taking the $450K-$600K big tech is the | better choice. Not everyone is cut out for the risk- | taking of a co-founder role. | andrew_ wrote: | > If someone is demanding a $450K/year base compensation | as a co-founder | | I see no mention of numbers aside from fractions in my | comment. This is truly jumping the shark in order to form | an argument. | | > A co-founder would want to focus on equity and take | something like $150K/year so the company could hire 1-2 | additional engineers with the other $300K/year. | | This is a rather bold assertion and you're stating it | with the tone of authority and general application across | the entire spectrum of what makes a startup, in any | sector, of any flavor. You're also applying your own | personal bias as a statement on a very personal situation | offered anecdotally. Both are neither fair nor wise. | | Startups come in a million flavors. What a person's | responsibilities to their family are does not equate to | not being "cut out for the risk-taking," as risks | themselves are of great variety, nor does a co-founder | need to focus on equity alone. I'm fortunate to have a | wide network of colleagues that include co-founders that | are in the game for long-term viability and stability to | provide equitable income for themselves and their | families, and their employees, as well as a return to | investors. It's clear that your view is one through the | lens of "to the moon on the back of a unicorn," where in | fact there are many different long-term strategies. I | personally find the unicorn startup path distasteful and | disingenuous, as there's such an incredible rate of | failure. Modesty and consistent, steady growth are now | highly underrated. | | Overall your message echoes that of the proposed co- | founder I mentioned in my original post, and is | antithetical with my views on business and startups in | general. To those who may be reading the parent above, | know that there are many successful startups that don't | subscribe to the same philosophy. | SmellTheGlove wrote: | > If someone is demanding a $450K/year base compensation | as a co-founder, they're not looking at this as a true | co-founder role. A co-founder would want to focus on | equity and take something like $150K/year so the company | could hire 1-2 additional engineers with the other | $300K/year. | | I think we're both making some assumptions around what GP | was offered, but I would agree with you that asking for | $450k as a cofounder is unreasonable. But I'd say that | for someone closer to middle age with a family, $200k | isn't unreasonable. The idea is that you want the | cofounder to focus on the company, so you remove the | financial distraction. | | > Not everyone is cut out for the risk-taking of a co- | founder role. | | Sure, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm | saying that you should not expect your co-founder and | their kids to live on ramen. If you want the experience | they offer, you gotta pay their bills. It's not about | extravagance, it's just the cost of mitigating the same | risk that the 20-something cofounder faces and mitigates | with their own salary. It just costs more to do it with | someone who is a little further along in life. | Kletiom wrote: | Something like 150k. | | In which world are any of your numbers realistic for a | founder position? | | I mean we talk startups. Most startups not even get 500k | in a seeding round ever | PragmaticPulp wrote: | The missing piece of this scenario is your current take-home. | If you're pulling in $600K at a BigCo then it's not really | reasonable to expect an _early_ founder role to match that | compensation _and_ give you substantial (10-20% or more) | equity in a new startup. Giving a founder $200K in the early | days should be enough to let them focus on the startup and | not worry about finances. If someone is in a personal | position where something like $200K /year would cause great | financial stress, they're probably not a good fit for a high- | risk startup founding position anyway. | | OTOH, if you were making $200K and the startup insisted you | drop to $70K/year, that's just short-sighted on their part. | Especially in this generous funding environment it doesn't | make any sense to squeeze founders with tiny salaries. | | The life stage and family differences are indeed a big gap, | but I think the career stage differences would have also been | insurmountable. Once you're a decade or two into a career and | you have a comfortable position at a big company, it's really | difficult to shift back into scrappy startup founder mode. | | To be clear: There's absolutely nothing wrong with taking | well-paid roles at big companies. It's actually a great | option, and it's fantastic that we can get paid so much | without taking on the risks of a startup. There's not really | a right or wrong answer in this job decision. | robocat wrote: | I suspect most founders do not account for their | opportunity cost correctly. | | For example: two founders, one innovator at $150k current | wages, and one tech at $350k. They work earning $0 each, | spending their savings for one year, and then get a seed | round of $1 million. Even though they have invested $500k | equivalent at the highest risk they will only get common | shares in their first round, so their cash-equivalent | investment is usually highly undervalued. The standard VC | return is looking for 30x return over 10 years (from their | one successful investment out of 10 companies). The | standard VC returns represent the best approximation to | investment risk. However founders have higher variance (one | company) and they don't get preferential shares, so | founders need _far_ more than 30x return (much greater than | $15 million) to even break even on their risk because they | are highly leveraged due to common shares. Only 5% of VC | funds even achieve fair returns, so founders are even more | fucked than you might think. | | Edit: although wages are less in most countries, I expect | the risk for founders is actually higher. Investment | amounts are smaller, less chance of outstanding company | success, and investors seem to really screw up the | companies they invest in (from my experience in NZ watching | other companies that took VC or seed investment). | PragmaticPulp wrote: | Even with $10-$100 million range exits, typical founders | are doing more than okay. | | Assuming founders are still in charge, they're often | given substantial bonuses ($1-2mm or more) if an | acquisition would make their equity worthless. This is | done to align their incentives with getting the | acquisition done, otherwise they'll hold out. | | Also, founders tend to pay themselves market rate once | the company has grown significantly. In your scenario | they wouldn't take the reduced $150K salary forever. | | The bigger risk is to employees of startups. They don't | get the generous acquisition bonuses of other companies. | | That said, founders of any startup that makes a mark are | usually in high demand. Even if they fail, they can point | to a lot of experience that few others have. | jedberg wrote: | It probably wouldn't have worked out well anyway. Your | cofounder would have been upset the first time you spent time | with your kids instead of working. Founders need to be in | roughly the same life stage for things to work out, or if | not, have a very strong understanding of what the other | person's work life balance is. Or at least the one without | kids needs to have very involved hobbies to spend time on | when you spend time with your kids! | robotresearcher wrote: | Eric Schmidt, Larry & Sergey are a counterexample. | | (But a runaway success is a poor model for expected | outcome.) | jedberg wrote: | How are they a counterexample? Larry and Sergey were both | grad students in the same place in life. Eric was hired | after they had funding and profits and was not a | cofounder. | robotresearcher wrote: | Ah, thanks for the correction. I didn't recall there was | 4 years between startup and Schmidt joining. | | He says in the linked interview there were ~150 employees | when he joined. | | https://www.freshworks.com/hrms/eric-schmidt-talks-about- | wha... | Rd6n6 wrote: | I would say that setting aside a tiny bit on top of "pay your | rent" for savings is necessary. It doesn't have to be a ton but | you shouldn't be in trouble if the company doesn't work out. | Startups can take years to play out and you need a safety | cushion afterwards, some basic level of financial security | jxm262 wrote: | never heard this before, but that makes perfect sense. thanks | for sharing | vishnugupta wrote: | Multiple angel investors told us something similar. | | One in fact said they wouldn't fund us if we pay ourselves way | too little because then we would be massively distracted to | create anything valuable. | Nition wrote: | The article phrases it as "pay yourself just enough to not | think about money." | myrandomcomment wrote: | This! 100%. Last startup when I was promoted to an e-staff | level I said "here is what I need not to have to think about | anything but making us a success." | | I have a new startup, and I picked the lowest number that makes | me not worry about the bills. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-01 23:01 UTC)