TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Pro rata is a bad term for founders

168 点作者 akharris超过 3 年前

19 条评论

jamiequint超过 3 年前
I don&#x27;t agree with this, pro-rata rights protect investors from dilutionary events which they have no control over. I guess that&#x27;s one-sided in the way that any &quot;right&quot; is in a legal contract, but that&#x27;s a weird way to frame it.<p>It&#x27;s also incorrect to frame the option as &quot;free&quot;, you&#x27;re only observing market behavior in a world in which the option exists, not one in which it doesn&#x27;t exist. You can&#x27;t say that investors would have the exact same behavior (in terms of prices, terms, etc) in a world in which they rarely or never got pro-rata. Maybe, but probably not.
评论 #28836956 未加载
评论 #28836299 未加载
评论 #28835059 未加载
nikhizzle超过 3 年前
One thing not mentioned here is that for very tiny investors, pro rata is a right that can protect against aggression from later, more highly resourced funders.<p>If the company is scaling quickly, and looks like it could have a good return, a later stage investor could come in and cause massive dilution in the cap table by issuing many shares and granting some amount to the employees and founders. If I had pro rata, I could have a proportional share of the funding, and even if in the likely case I didn’t have the capital I could likely raise it, and at least get some share of the upside.
评论 #28835806 未加载
评论 #28835476 未加载
eftychis超过 3 年前
The thing is accounting for the risk and the lack of liquidity and opportunity cost I don&#x27;t think it is worth coming to the table for most investors without pro rata. That&#x27;s from my own calculations and some others posted here and there. Essentially, if you don&#x27;t have pro rata or something equivalent to bet more on the winning horse the rational decision would be to place money in the stock or commodities market honestly with much less risk.<p>But yeah you should pick an investor according to what you want-- help and advice as part of the package is valuable and good investors and advisors give it openly.<p>Curious of course on feedback on this -- do other people get different numbers? P.S. Maybe that is the idea for this post from someone from YC? Push away other future investors? :D
drinkzima超过 3 年前
This seems odd to write, as [I believe] YC has one of the strongest, least-founder-favorable versions of pro rata. YC sets so many market terms for startups, they could change this dynamic.
评论 #28833686 未加载
评论 #28833719 未加载
robotresearcher超过 3 年前
Definition of pro-rata rights of the investor: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;corporatefinanceinstitute.com&#x2F;resources&#x2F;knowledge&#x2F;finance&#x2F;pro-rata-right&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;corporatefinanceinstitute.com&#x2F;resources&#x2F;knowledge&#x2F;fi...</a>
mchusma超过 3 年前
Honestly I&#x27;m a founder not investor, but one of the reasons that prices are so high is because of terms. Would I invest in a public company that may be overvalued (say Tesla) if I could get preferred shares, liquidation preferences, pro rata, etc? Yes.<p>So pro rata is just one in a basket of investor friendly terms.
aeternum超过 3 年前
It&#x27;d be really nice if articles like this began with a definition of the term.<p>Terms can often be ambiguous so this helps ground the article and ensure everyone is talking about the same thing. There are also plenty of HN readers who have no idea what it refers to that would also benefit greatly.
评论 #28834715 未加载
JumpCrisscross超过 3 年前
&gt; <i>Crazy! This is valuable term! Investors should have to pay more to get it</i><p>On the flip side, I&#x27;d love for a founder to give me a discount for agreeing to take out these boilerplate terms I have--as an angel investor--zero interest in adversarially leveraging.
评论 #28833984 未加载
jacquesm超过 3 年前
This is a very candid and transparent article and it is very good of Aaron to spell this out so clearly. It is possible for pro-rata terms to work out well for founders but more often than not it only works to the advantage of investors (because they have more capital by definition) and it stacks the deck against the founders in later rounds (and may make it harder to close a later round!).
bsder超过 3 年前
It is interesting to me that the argument is over terms while admitting that &quot;Contracts aren’t worth spit.&quot;.<p>Power and goodwill are what count.<p>However, contracts matter once outsiders start getting involved. The contract (hopefully) isn&#x27;t there to bind the original parties much, but it matters a <i>LOT</i> once someone much more adversarial enters the picture.
joshu超过 3 年前
so, he thinks you should have to buy pro-rata, and then have the later investors take it away anyway? and then the investor is expected to go to court over it? how long do you think investors that sue their founders will continue to get good deals?<p>yes, pro-rata is a bit of a pain on up rounds, especially in terms of letting later investors get the ownership they want. but on a down round, previous investors get wiped out very aggressively; they need the protection to be able to at least maintain their stake.<p>(personally, i will typically go with whatever the founder wants. &quot;it looks bad if you don&#x27;t take your prorata&quot; or &quot;i can&#x27;t get enough room for the new investor&quot; and so on. if a new investors adds terms to strip previous investors of their rights, i will insist on it, though.)
irjustin超过 3 年前
Hrm, overall I still lean toward pro rata being a net positive. The two situations this is advice is handling are these:<p>&gt; I insisted on getting pro rata in tight rounds where the founder wanted to bring in new investors or limit dilution.<p>&gt; I learned this through rough conversations with founders who expected a pro rata investment during a difficult fundraise and didn’t get it.<p>The 2nd situation isn&#x27;t really something to protect against. To expect pro rata during a difficult fundraise is weird because the expectation is to be able to force someone to invest in your dying company? A non-situation to me.<p>The 1st one is the most realistic and understandable. Hot rounds really become a fight of letting the right people in at the right price. Without pro-rata small guys would disproportionately not be able to continue their investment.<p>So then it becomes negotiating with the incoming round&#x27;s lead to lower post-money to avoid overall dilution.<p>Which, is always a welcomed problem.
评论 #28835420 未加载
sytse超过 3 年前
One possible reason for pro-rata term that I don&#x27;t see mentioned is preventing dilution due to an underpriced round. But since most of the time investors have to agree anyway to a new round that seems a minor concern.
评论 #28833863 未加载
thruflo22超过 3 年前
This is very interesting and it strikes me that things could be more balanced if pro-rata rights decayed if the investor is not active.<p>So similar to vesting for rights — a founder &#x2F; employee needs to continue to be active to continue to vest. Ideally an investor could continue to be active to continue to exercise pro-rata.<p>It’s pretty hard to enforce &#x2F; codify “active” for an investor though and could just result in time wasting by pretending to be involved helpful when just coasting. Was that intro genuine or just designed to protect the pro-rata?
duchenne超过 3 年前
It seems to me that, without the pro-rata term, a founder could forcefully dilute an early investor by selling newly issued stocks at a low price to himself or his friends.<p>Am I missing something?
jollybean超过 3 年前
It&#x27;s true that a pro-rata has material value.<p>But the author doesn&#x27;t indicate how that can be problematic.<p>How do existing requirement to allow previous investors in the round, contribute to a &#x27;warping&#x27; or &#x27;problems&#x27;?<p>I mean, if pro-rata is only designed to prevent <i>dilution</i> - well that should not be so bad. That means in any given new round, there should be enough room for new investors, no?<p>It also should be less painful in early rounds when investors own a smaller amount.<p>Would it possible to do &#x27;partial pro-rata&#x27;?
评论 #28838867 未加载
hstern超过 3 年前
Completely agreed. Current pro rata rights are mostly a legal fiction that mostly harm founders with less experience or leverage. The right should be explicitly negotiated!
rexreed超过 3 年前
For those who aren&#x27;t familiar with Pro Rata, the term isn&#x27;t being well defined here or in the original post.<p>This site [0] does the best job explaining what Pro Rata rights are and why are they are important to both investors and their potential issues:<p>&quot;Pro-rata right is a legal term that describes the right, but not the obligation, that can be given to an investor to maintain their initial level of percentage ownership in a company during subsequent rounds of financing.<p>In other words, if an investor with a pro-rata right initially acquired a 10% equity stake in a company, then he or she is given the option to invest more in the next rounds of the company’s financing to maintain a 10% stake.<p>...<p>The idea of a pro-rata right is essentially related to the concept of dilution. Each new round of equity financing implies the issuance of new shares. When new shares are issued, the percentage of the equity stake of current shareholders (founders, investors) is diluted. In other words, the current shareholders lose part of their voting power as calculated on a percentage basis.<p>In order to prevent such a scenario, the investors can ask a company to include a provision that grants them pro-rata rights. The investor with the pro-rata right is then able to maintain the percentage of their equity stake and voting power even with the issuance of new shares.<p>Note that the pro-rata right is not an obligation, and it can be exercised at the discretion of its holder. Some investors with pro-rata rights may opt not to exercise their option to invest in the next rounds of financing. The reasons for abandoning the rights include poor performance or development of a company, as well as extremely large additional investments required to maintain the initial ownership percentage.<p>In addition, in some cases, investors do not receive pro-rata rights. Some companies opt to grant such rights to valuable investors who have made a significant impact on the business.<p>Pro-rata rights are generally granted to, or asked for by, investors who invest in early rounds of financing. The investors are often not willing to exercise their rights in the later financing stages due to the high investment amount required.&quot;<p>As per above, the option to maintain the investor&#x27;s initial equity is entirely up to the investor in subsequent rounds. However, this option is not afforded the founder. The founder is not able to maintain their ownership across rounds, because, for evident reasons, the equity that is granted to the investors necessarily comes out of the founders&#x27; shares. It has to add up to 100% (this can&#x27;t be the startup version of The Directors).<p>One way I like to visualize this is like a growing pie. Like an actual pie, perhaps apple or blueberry, or pumpkin or chocolate silk.<p>In the beginning the pie is really small and can fit in the palm of your hand. It&#x27;s all your pie that you and your founders can share. It&#x27;s so small you can probably each eat it in one or two bites.<p>Now someone else is interested in your pie and contributes money (ingredients) to increase the size of your pie. They increase the size of your pie in exchange for 1&#x2F;3 ownership. Now 1&#x2F;3 of the pie is the investors to eat, and the other 2&#x2F;3 is yours. You don&#x27;t own all the pie anymore, but you and your founders can eat your portion of the pie now in two bites each. Hey the pie has grown for everyone, even if you share is smaller, your portion is more bites than it was before.<p>Now your pie is looking pretty darn attractive and someone else wants in. So a new investor puts in even more ingredients and really increase the size of the pie. In exchange, they take 1&#x2F;3 of the pie. That shrinks your portion of the pie even further, and even that of the previous investor. The previous investor really likes your pie and they&#x27;re not content with the number of bites they had before since the pie is so much bigger. They want more bites. So they chip in along with the new investors to keep their stake at 1&#x2F;3 of the pie.<p>At this point, the founders have 1&#x2F;3 of the pie, the first investors have 1&#x2F;3, and the new investors have 1&#x2F;3. The pie is much bigger, and everyone has many bites. In the beginning the founders had the whole tiny pie to themselves, and now they have 1&#x2F;3 of a much bigger pie. They also have more people invested in the pie. It&#x27;s not entirely your decision on what happens to the pie. Just hope it keeps growing so that when you sell your pie (assuming you haven&#x27;t eaten it), it will go to someone who will buy that pie for more than the cost of the ingredients and all the time you spent on it.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;corporatefinanceinstitute.com&#x2F;resources&#x2F;knowledge&#x2F;finance&#x2F;pro-rata-right&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;corporatefinanceinstitute.com&#x2F;resources&#x2F;knowledge&#x2F;fi...</a>
评论 #28848256 未加载
parkerjamie1993超过 3 年前
Interesting piece. Thanks Aaron!