6% Can Be a Lot More Than You Think

Earlier this week, Paisano created quite a stir with his review of Y Combinator’s demo day. The reaction certainly shocked me, as I thought it was a pretty balanced piece. He gave Y Combinator credit for a lot of Web innovation while bringing up the fact that no big homeruns have come out of the incubator yet and mentioning they take a rather hefty cut of a startup for a comparatively small $5,000. (Semi-related, I enjoyed this post about the topic of incubator resentment.)

The biggest stir came from the 10% figure in the first draft (Y Combinator actually takes up to 10%; our apologies for the error!) But I think the debate it sparked was well worth having. Paul Graham—Y Combinator’s Grand Poobah—coincidentally had a piece on his blog the same day about the topic of giving up equity. (Apparently it was written last summer, although I just saw it that day.)

It’s a thought-provoking argument, and I’m not sure what I make of it. Perhaps I’ve been in the Valley too long, but at first blush it just reads like a VC trying to convince you to take his money. It’s a rational argument—but it certainly assumes that investors have a huge affect on a company’s outcome and when it comes to Web businesses, I’m not sure they do, especially at the early stages. Especially considering how much more equity you have to give up for every dollar you raise in those early days.

From Graham:

“For example, suppose Y Combinator offers to fund you in return for 6% of your company. In this case, n is .06 and 1/(1 - n) is 1.064. So you should take the deal if you believe we can improve your average outcome by more than 6.4%. If we improve your outcome by 10%, you're net ahead, because the remaining .94 you hold is worth .94 x 1.1 = 1.034.”

Yes, that makes sense, logically. But it ignores the plain fact that there’s no way to know if Y Combinator improves the company any more or less than on-the-fly learning would or—better yet—free mentorship from someone who has been there. In other words, maybe your startup is 10% better after going through an incubator. But maybe that would have been the case anyway, because you had a great idea that built an audience. In that case you’re not net ahead. It’d be like going to someone’s house for dinner then paying them for the meal they intended on giving you for free. Or, perhaps it's more like taking out an insurance policy, and most of the best entrepreneurs don't like insurance or safety nets. That's why they are entrepreneurs!

It reminds me of the risk-reward I hear potential grad school students weighing. In my case, I never considered getting a journalism degree because I didn’t have the money, and I didn’t want to take out a loan. Others argued it would increase my earning potential by x% so that investment would be worth it. The main argument was the connections you get from attending a well-heeled journalism school. So maybe, if I'd come out to a lucrative daily paper job, it could have seemed a good bet. But since those connections—and J School training--are primarily rooted in the daily newspaper world, I'd argue it could have actually cost me career value long term.

It’s a judgment call for any startup and there’s absolutely no right or wrong answer and no way to know if you made the absolute right move or not even in hindsight. I frequently argue that entrepreneurs should move to Silicon Valley because proximity to talent and smart advisers takes out certain inherent risk factors. There’s certainly a cost to that, so it’s not such different advice than Graham’s. I just think it's not as easy of a decision as he makes it out to be. 6% is a lot and no entrepreneur should be cavalier about giving it up, especially since there’s so much you can do for free or cheap on the Web.

I'm not trying to beat up on incubators, but most of the entrepreneurs I respect the most would argue they were better off putting off raising money for as long as possible. If you’re onto something, every user you grow will make your eventual windfall that much larger. 1% can be nothing. 1% of Facebook is also worth hundreds of millions (at least). You don’t have infinite slices of equity to pass around, and you don’t know how much you’ll have to give up later on. That 6% you don’t give up could wind up being a big chunk of your holdings-- maybe even the only thing you're left with.

I think Graham’s points do hold when it comes to hiring talent and the post is essential reading for anyone going through that decision. The right hires do frequently make and break a company, and especially in the Valley there is only so much top talent to go around.

I only really balked at this line:

“It would improve the average startup's prospects by more than 43% just to be able to say they were funded by Sequoia, even if they never actually got the money.”

Let's be clear: Sequoia has plenty of flops. There is nothing that easy in the world of building a company; no "magic touch." Sorry, but that is VC Kool-aid talking and no entrepreneur should believe that name cache is worth 30% of your company. There's a startup graveyard littered with desperate entrepreneurs who thought that way.

[For what it’s worth, I invited Paul via email to have dinner with me next time we’re in the same city as I’m dying to actually meet him. I’d love to get him on TechTicker sometime too.]


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Very well considered counter-argument to the 6% point that Paul makes.

Just a small correction: Paul's essay, the Equity Equation, is actually quite old and often quoted. Its from July 2007. I had given Pai the link that day, so perhaps that's where the confusion came from.

Balk all you want about the Sequoia comment, without them YouTube would have been bought for a lot less than $1.65 billion. Sequoia is great because they have so many huge companies they've backed that can snap up their new investments (Google buying YT, I know there are more examples but I can't name them off the top of my head).

I am a big fan of the YC guys, they're a really cool crowd of kids to hang out with. The big problem I see with the YC model is they're funding so many companies they don't have the *time* to spend advising/mentoring all of them. I would care a lot more about that than the amount of money they're putting into your company.

"...entrepreneur should believe that name cache is worth 30% of your company."

Cachet, not cache.


sam: that is ONE company out of sequoia's portfolio. go talk to entrepreneurs who didn't make it and see what they have to say about whether the "sequoia name" made them a success. i'd argue youtube was worth 1.6 b. mostly because they built a huge cultural force showing 100 m videos a month (much larger now). it's not sequoia's "name" giving them that valuation. PERIOD. i'm not saying sequoia isn't an excellent VC firm. and i'm not saying an excellent VC firm is a bad thing to have in your corner. i'm just saying an excellent VC firm doesn't make the startup a success and a name isn't worth 30% of your company.

Yeah but VCs have never had a 100% success rate, there's always going to be a corner full of failed companies. At the end of the day it doesn't matter how much % of a company a VC took if the company failed. Do the founders of Google/Yahoo/Cisco etc complain about the amount of equity that Sequoia took? I'd be very interested in hearing what they really think.

I really think you're missing the point here. YC isn't about the money. They have the connections (and they're not just talk) which is evident by the # of companies that have taken a Series A from high profile VCs after their YC seed round. YC is about the community, advisors, connections, etc that you'll get from it. The money is just to get through the few months that you're working on the prototype.

Hi Sarah,
I'm interested to know what percentage of a firm you do think a good VC is worth?

I'm guessing north of zero and we've established less than 30 but I guess its a loaded question since we're discussing the value of 6%...

Sarah -

the important point you make here is *OPPORTUNITY COST*, not just relative benefit.

in other words, paul's equation is correct in evaluating if taking 6-10% in exchange for small amt of capital is BETTER, but not whether it is BEST given other available capital / advisory services to the entrepreneur (noting scarcity issues related to their geography, experience, etc).

that said, i would argue that there are not many advisors of Paul Graham's level of expertise available at *ANY* price in most geographies, particularly outside the bay area.

the other factor is TIME to evaluate opportunity cost -- and thus, if as a rookie entrepreneur you get the opportunity to mentor with Paul for only 6% of your equity, it's not a bad deal... unless you can find a BETTER deal in a short period of time, you should probably take it.

on the other hand, in the SF bay area, you may be able to get close-to-equivalent value from an advisor for only 0.25% of common stock, vested monthly over 2 years (a typical startup advisory relationship).

my $1.02,

- dave mcclure

Startup success is pretty binary-- it's pass/fail in terms of whether you see a liquidity event and/or profitability. Statistically speaking, no matter how clever you think your idea is, the odds are stacked against you... Which means that it's generally better to optimize for your CHANCE of success rather than the magnitude of that success, should it happen...

YC is a complex package (mentorship, fundraising accelerent, founder network, cachet for hiring/PR/M&A, legal assistance, rockin' good time, etc). Given all that it brings, I think it's pretty ridiculous to think that it doesn't significantly increase your chance at a successful exit.

There are a lot of good options between the extremes of Sequoia and Y Combinator that any prospective entrepreneur owes it to themselves to explore.

Do you really think that any startup, no matter how successful, after 3 months would get to present to the same audience that Y Combinator can provide on demo day How much do you think that is worth BTW an incubator is for sick babies. YC is not an incubator.

Do you really think that any startup, no matter how successful, after 3 months would get to present to the same audience that Y Combinator can provide on demo day How much do you think that is worth BTW an incubator is for sick babies. YC is not an incubator.

Should be "name cachet" not "name cache"

The comments to this entry are closed.

"Brilliant, Crazy, Cocky" puts a well-deserved spotlight on the fascinating entrepreneurs working in some of the most overlooked places on Earth. This book reminds us that when entrepreneurial opportunity is enabled and embraced locally, the economic and social benefits have the power to transform us all.
Brilliant. Crazy. Cocky.

New Book

An unforgettable portrait of the emerging world's entrepreneurial dynamos Brilliant, Crazy, Cocky is the story about that top 1% of people who do more to change their worlds through greed and ambition than politicians, NGOs and nonprofits ever can. This new breed of self-starter is taking local turmoil and turning it into opportunities, making millions, creating thousands of jobs and changing the face of modern entrepreneurship at the same time. To tell this story, Lacy spent forty weeks traveling through Asia, South America and Africa hunting down the most impressive up-and-comers the developed world has never heard of....yet.

Excerpt »

Buy it from these sellers

Srah Lacy

Sarah Lacy is an award-winning reporter who has covered high-growth entrepreneurship for more than fifteen years. She is the founder, CEO and Editor-in-Chief of PandoDaily.com, the site-of-record for the startup ecosystem. She lives in San Francisco.

Learn more »


Get updates delivered directly to your inbox. Just enter your email address and click Subscribe: