什么样的创业公司，能够让我在供职四年内成为百万富翁?

…有人在Quora问了这个问题：What startup could make me a millionaire in four years if I got hired as an emplyee today？ Symbolic Analytics的创始人Brandon Smietana在下面做了很长的回答，内容很精彩，不过请勿对号入座： 大多数创业公司的退出（exit)，都是通过M&A（并购），而不是通过IPO(首次公开募股），现在大多数的M&A价格都低于3000万美元，最典型的价格是1500万美元，现在我们来假设一个最乐观的退出案例，从其中的数据中算出，我作为创始人和CEO，能够拿多少钱；从而计算出，你，作为一个员工可能赚得的利益。

Most exits today are M&As instead of IPOs and most M&As are less than 30 million, typically 15 million. Let's walk through optimistic numbers of a typical exit to see how much money I would make. Then we will compute how much money you would make as an employee. Assumptions. 1> I take 10 million dollars in investment 2> Investors own 50% of the company (optimistic) 3> I sell company for 30 million dollars 4> I own 30% of the outstanding shares (extremely optimistic) Investors have preferred shares. They receive the money they invested back first, then they "participate" in what is left.

（一） 假定案例
1）我拿到1000万的投资。
2）投资人拥有公司50%的股权（乐观估计）。
3）我将公司以3000万的价格出售。
4）我拥有30%的外流通股（Outstanding Share) ，非常乐观的估计。

投资人还拥有优先股，通过并购，他们首先把自己投入的钱收回来，然后再参与省下的股权收益分红。
1）在3000万的退出中，投资人首先拿回他们投入的1000万，剩下2000万。
2）然后，优先股股东吃掉省下2000万的50%的利益分红，于是他们拿走另外1000万。
3）现在，整个脱售的现金只剩下1000万，分享这份利益的关系者包括大众股东，公司员工，创始人和管理团队。 我，作为创始人和CEO，享有最多的普通股股权，价值这1000万美元的大概600万。省下的400万利益归属其他所有的普通股股东（包括所有的公司员工） 最典型的早期员工，在利益分红中能拿到的资产不足CEO的1/30，因此，一位非常重要的早期员工，能够从脱售中取得20万美元的利益。 现在，让我设想得不那么乐观，相对实际一点。70%进入A轮融资的创业者，除了工资，其他什么利益都无法从公司获得。

因此作为一名员工，
1）有70%的可能，如果你在A轮融资的时候加入创业公司，你的普通股是没有价值的。
2）与A轮以前的早期员工相比，A轮以后的员工通过股权或者期权能拿到的利益要少很多。
3）在A轮融资以后，新员工能够拿到的最好的股权大概在0.3%左右。
4）无论什么样的员工，他们的股权都会在管理层更换或者新一轮融资中被稀释。

（二） 如果我进入的公司是”下一个Facebook”呢？

硅谷在过去的十年里发生了惊天动地的变化。这些变化，同时作用并且影响着IT员工们能从公司那里获取的利益。 如果你在1998年以前（包含1998年）加入了一家在将来很成功的创业公司，那你一定已经赚了很多钱。但是，如果你加入的是Facebook，你所能获取的利益价值可能就无法跟前者媲美了。那么，那些加入“下一个Facebook“的哥们儿，希望可能就更小了，以下是原因：

谷歌的早期员工在加入时，谷歌的估值还很低。
1）谷歌的估值，一路从4000万涨到了2000亿。
2）那些最早加入谷歌的清洁工，从谷歌获得价值1000美元的股权，在2008年也价值400万美元。
3）一个获得了5万美元股权的工程师，他的股权在2008年价值1亿美元。
4）谷歌的大厨也获得了价值2800万的股权。

有四点原因说明，谷歌的员工为何能够金融上收益如此好：
1）他们在公司处于很低估值的时候获得股票期权。
2）从A轮融资到现在，谷歌的估值涨了4000倍。
3）公司员工以人为的超低协议价格获得购买期权（大概只相当于每股股价的1/10还要低），因为当时IRS(美国国税局）的409（a)条款还不存在呢。
4）由于协议价格足够低，因此员工在行权时，缴纳的是资本利得税15%（Capital Gain Tax），而不是收入税50%（Income Tax treatment)。

当谷歌发行股票给他的员工时：
1）公司处于低估值阶段，而非后来的顶峰估值阶段。
2）那时，美国国税局还没有执行409(a)条款，409（a)条款明确规定了员工期权的估值。

在十年以前，创业公司都会以低于估值的协议价格发给员工期权，以吸引有识之士。员工因此有可能通过公司IPO而一夜致富，他们行权的协议价格大概之相当于估值价的1/10。 而到今天，这么做就是不合法的了。现在，公司的主管们，依据83（b)条款，依然有权通过限制性股票（restricted stock)获得低估股票（undervalued stock)；但是，现在获得将理性期权（Incentive Stock Options)的员工，就必须遵循IRS的的409（a)条款。同时，现在的员工，在行权时更可能缴纳50%的收入税，而不是15%的资本利得税。 随着更高的早期估值，现在的员工已经不太有可能有现金能够行权，而且也不太有可能缴纳资本利得税，一般都缴纳收入税。409（a）条款通过明确规定，也防止了员工行权价像十年前那么低。现在，一个创业公司的员工，如果行使价值200万美元的ISO期权（国际标准期权），在缴纳了加州税或者德州税之后，仍然可能面临50%的收入税。 一般情况下：创始人和主管们获得的是依据83（b)条款的限制性股票（Restricted Stock),并且缴纳的是15%的资本利得税，员工则更可能时取得福利期权（Incentive Options), 税率相对更高。 因此，作为一名员工，即便有一天你的公司被卖了，你也可能要缴纳50%的收入税。 200万瞬间就只剩100万，而现在，旧金山的房价是300万。

（三）创业公司估值之于员工的影响

以前所有关于谷歌员工胜出的理由，现在都有可能不复存在了。 新的创业公司，如Facebook，获得很高的早期估值，因此，早期员工能获得的利益相比以前的创业公司，就少很多了。 更重要的是，现在只有越来越少的大型IPO，取而代之的是越来越多的小型M&A。


图片一： 1992年 — 2009年 风险投资也IPO和M&A交易的比例

大多数公司并没有谷歌和Facebook那样做得很好。即便在Facebook，也只有一小部分员工积累财富。 Zuckerberg在Facebook的股权大致相当于Facebook所有非主管的员工股权的总和（24%vs30%).。前50个Facebook的非主管员工所获得的股权，差不多相当于后面25000个员工的总和。 股权就是金字塔，越升一级，差距就越大。 在一个以3000万被并购的公司退出案例里（见上），一个很成功的M&A退出。公司的CEO也差不多只能赚600万美元。

（四）创业领域与员工回报的关系

有很多创业公司扎根在大众互联网领域（Customer Internet Space), 但是这个领域的投资回报率也最低。就拿Facebook举例（最成功的消费者互联网公司之一），它从每一个月度活跃用户那里只能产生3美元/年的利益。 很少的大众互联网公司能够通过广告获得盈利，像Ad.ly, Digg, Myspace, Twitter,还有很多其他的公司都很难达到大规模盈利，即便是用户量非常庞大。 一个大众互联网公司，如果每个月的活跃用户数有50万，依照Facebook的盈利推算，一年的盈利也只有150万美元。因此，不要把大众互联网当做救命稻草。 现如今，B2B/SaaS模式，以及生物技术市场，仍然能够在市场上攫取上亿的资金，但是，很少有人能有能力和经验在这个市场里把公司做起来。但是，在这领域，却有比大众互联网市场更多的盈利机会。 最有盈利空间的市场，最难发现创业公司。特别是，金融领域每年攫取的利润占全美公司利益的70%，但是，在硅谷却很难发现金融创业公司，即便有，也基本是大众金融服务。 Protip: 从数据和理论上看，如果你是A轮以后加入大众互联网公司的员工一枚，你的股权几乎就不值钱了。

1> Of the 30 million dollar exit, the investors get their 10 million dollars back first. Then there is only 20 million left. 2> Then the preferred shareholders participate in 50% of whats left, so they get another 10 million. 3> Now there is 10 million left to be split between the common stock shareholders (employees and founders and management). I as, the founder/CEO and largest common stock holder would only make make 6 million. There is 4 million left for the rest of the common stock holders (all of the other employees). Typical early employees receive less than 1/30th of the equity of the CEO. Therefore a very critical, early employee would make about 200k from this exit. Now, to be less optimistic and more realistic. We also know that 70% of entrepreneurs raising series A will receive nothing but their salary from the company. Therefore as an employee,

there is a 70% chance your equity is worthless if you join at the Series A.

you will receive substantially less equity at series A than employees before the series A.

After the series A, a new hire will be lucky to own 0.3%

Whatever the employee gets at hire, will suffer dilution from management changes and additional rounds of investment

But what if I join the next Facebook? Silicon valley has changed over the past decade. These changes affect how much money you will make as a startup employee. If you joined a successful startup in 1998, you would have made a lot of money. However if you had joined Facebook you would not have made nearly as much. The employees of the "next Facebook" are likely to do even more poorly. Here is why. Google had a very low valuation when the early employees joined.

Google's valuation went from 40 million to nearly 200 billion.

The janitor who joined Google and received $1,000 in equity, would be worth 4 million in 2008.

An engineer who received 50k in equity would be worth 100 million in 2008.

The chef at Google made 28 million.

There are 4 reasons that Google employees did well financially:

They received stock options when the company was at a low valuation

The valuation of the company grew 4000x from their series A valuation

Employees received options with artificially low strike prices (1/10th of valuation of preferred), because 409(a) regulations did not exist

The strike price was low enough that Google employees could exercise their options and receive capital gains tax treatment (15% tax rate) instead of income tax treatment (50% tax rate)

When Google issues stock to its employees it was 1> At a low valuation compared to the peak valuation of the company 2> Before IRS mandated 409(a) valuations for employee stock options A decade ago, startups routinely issued options to employees with undervalued strike prices, in order to attract talent. The employees became rich if the company IPOed because they received stock options with a strike price below market rate (one tenth the valuation of the preferred). Today this practice is illegal. Executives can and still do received undervalued stock via restricted stock and 83(b) elections, but employees who receive inventive stock options now fall under 409(a). Also, employees are now more likely to be hit with the 50% income tax rate on their options instead of the 15% capital gains tax treatment. With higher earlier valuations, it is unlikely that most employees have the cash required to exercise their options and gain the lower capital tax treatment instead of the income tax treatment. 409(a) also prevents the exercise price from being artificially low, as it was 10 years ago. A startup employee exercising 2 million dollars worth of ISO options today can expect to pay a 50% tax rate, after California and Federal taxes. Founders and Executives often receive restricted stock under 83(b) election which qualify for the lower capital gains tax treatment, while employees are more likely to receive incentive options that are taxed at the higher rate. So as an employee, even if your company is sold, you may be hit with 50% tax rates. 2 million is only 1 million after taxes. Houses cost 3 million. Effect of Startup Valuations on Employees Many of the reasons Google employees did well, are no longer true. Newer companies such as Facebook had very large early stage valuations and therefore early employees receives significantly less compared to previous startups. More importantly however, there are many fewer large IPOs and many more smaller M&As.



Most companies do not do as well as Google and Facebook. Even within companies such as Facebook, only a small minority of the employees become wealthy. Zuckerberg has almost as much equity in Facebook as all the other non-executive employees combined (24% vs 30%) . The first 50 Facebook non-executive employees have as much equity as the next 2500 employees. There is a pyramid of equity. The drop off at each stage is massive. In a company with a 30 million dollar exit (the example above), a good M&A exit. The CEO only made 6 million dollars. Relationship Between Startup Sector and Employee Returns There are the most startups in the consumer internet space, but this is the lowest revenue space. Facebook for instance (one of the most successful consumer internet companies) only generates $3/year in revenue per monthly active user. Very few consumer internet companies achieve profitability on an ad model. Companies such as Ad.ly, Reddit, Digg, Myspace, Twitter and dozens of others have failed to achieve substaintialy profitabili

ty, even with extremely large audiences. A consumer internet company with 500k monthly users which monetizes as well as Facebook on a per user basis only has revenue of 1.5 million year. Don't drink the consumer internet cool-aid. The B2B/SaaS and biotech markets still routinely have billion dollar exits, however few people have the skills or experience to start companies in this market. There is however significantly more revenue here than in consumer startups. The most profitable market, is the market almost no one founds "startups" in. Specifically, the financial sectors accounts for 70% of US corporate profits, but there are hardly any financial startups in Silicon Valley. Furthermore, even those that exist are mostly consumer finance. Protip: statistically you options are worthless if you are at a Series A consumer startup with an ad revenue model. Summary: Reality Check:

You will make 7.5 million bootstrapping a company with 500k a year earnings and selling at 15x P/E

You will make less than 6 million raising 10 million in VC, having no cofounders and exiting at 30 million.

If you are an employee at a company that exits at less than 30 million, you are unlikely to receive enough money to buy a decent house in Palo Alto (you will receive 200k, a good house costs 3 million).

Even if you make 2 million dollars as an employee, the government will take 50% of that as taxes.

A good engineer will make more money working in finance than at the average consumer internet startup.

Getting Screwed:

There are many people who have built and sold companies for over 50 million who have made no money

There are people who have built companies that have had billion dollar IPOs and only made 4 million dollars. In the 1980s 30mm on a 1 billion IPO was considered "good" for a founder (example: Adobe).

Entrepreneurs and employees often make much much less than you would expect from an 80 million dollar exit

80 million dollar exits as reported by media are sometimes actually only 8 million dollar exits.

Slide sold for 200 million dollars to Google, but the employees made almost nothing, because so little was left for the common stock shareholders after the preferred shareholders were paid back

Myspace was bought for $580 million, but the founders only received as much as they would have if the company was sold for $125 instead of the 580 million it was sold for. The employees received almost nothing. Read "Stealing MySpace" http://amzn.to/xOtYME

Doing the Wrong Things:

People start businesses in the wrong sectors

Employees join "startups" in the wrong sectors

Mindshare vs Marketshare:

VC gets the media attention but angels invest 30 times as much capital

Stories about companies that IPO have the media attention, but for each of them there are dozens of small internet businesses with 2mm/year in revenue.

There are 300,000 Americans that have over 10 million in assets. Statistically almost none of them earned this wealth as startup employees or employees of venture backed companies.