控制权

Paul Graham 2010-12-01

控制权

创始人控制权

2010年12月

我们资助的一个创始人现在正在和风险投资家谈判,他问我创业公司的创始人在A轮融资后保留董事会控制权有多普遍。他说风投告诉他这几乎从未发生过。

十年前这是真的。在过去,创始人很少在A轮融资后保持董事会的控制权。传统的A轮董事会由两名创始人、两名风投和一名独立成员组成。最近的结构通常是一名创始人、一名风投和一名独立成员。无论哪种情况,创始人都失去了多数席位。

但并非总是如此。马克·扎克伯格在A轮时保持了Facebook董事会的控制权,至今仍然保持着。马克·平库斯也保持了Zynga的控制权。但这些只是例外吗?创始人在A轮后保持控制权有多普遍?我听说过我们资助的公司中有几个案例,但我不确定有多少,所以我给ycfounders邮件列表发了邮件。

回复让我感到惊讶。在我们资助的十几家公司中,创始人在A轮融资后仍然拥有董事会多数席位。

我觉得我们正处于一个临界点。很多风投仍然表现得好像创始人在A轮融资后保留董事会控制权是闻所未闻的。很多人试图让你感觉很糟糕,即使你只是问一下——好像你想要这样的东西是个新手或控制狂。但我听到的创始人不是新手或控制狂。或者如果他们是,他们就像马克·扎克伯格那样,是风投应该努力资助更多的新手和控制狂。

创始人在A轮融资后保留控制权显然是闻所未闻的。除非发生财务灾难,我认为在未来一年内这将成为常态。

公司的控制权是一个比在董事会会议上简单投票超过其他方更复杂的问题。投资者通常对某些重大决定拥有否决权,比如出售公司,无论他们拥有多少董事会席位。而且董事会投票很少分裂。事情是在投票前的讨论中决定的,而不是在投票本身中,投票通常是一致的。但如果在这种讨论中意见分歧,知道自己会在投票中失败的一方往往会不那么坚持。这就是董事会控制权的实际意义。你不能简单地做任何你想做的事;董事会仍然必须为股东的利益行事;但如果你拥有多数董事会席位,那么你对股东利益的意见往往会占上风。

因此,虽然董事会控制权不是完全控制权,但也不是虚构的。公司内部的感觉必然会有所不同。这意味着如果创始人在A轮融资后保留董事会控制权成为常态,这将改变整个创业世界的感觉方式。

转向新规范的速度可能出人意料地快,因为能够保留控制权的创业公司往往是最好的那些。它们是为其他创业公司和风投设定趋势的公司。

风投在与创业公司谈判时严苛的很多原因是,他们不好意思回到合伙人那里看起来像是被打败了。当他们签署投资意向书时,他们希望能够吹嘘他们获得的好条款。很多人个人并不那么在意创始人是否保留董事会控制权。他们只是不想看起来像是做出了让步。这意味着如果让创始人保留控制权不再被视为让步,它将迅速变得更加普遍。

就像很多强加给风投的变化一样,这个变化最终不会像他们想象的那样成为大问题。风投仍然能够说服;他们只是不能强迫。而他们不得不诉诸强迫的创业公司并不是重要的那些。风投从少数大成功案例中赚取大部分资金,而那些不是他们。

知道创始人将保持董事会的控制权甚至可能帮助风投做出更好的选择。如果他们知道不能解雇创始人,他们将不得不选择他们可以信任的创始人。而这才是他们一直以来应该选择的人。

感谢Sam Altman、John Bautista、Trevor Blackwell、Paul Buchheit、Brian Chesky、Bill Clerico、Patrick Collison、Adam Goldstein、James Lindenbaum、Jessica Livingston和Fred Wilson阅读本文的草稿。

Control

Founder Control

December 2010

Someone we funded is talking to VCs now, and asked me how common it was for a startup’s founders to retain control of the board after a series A round. He said VCs told him this almost never happened.

Ten years ago that was true. In the past, founders rarely kept control of the board through a series A. The traditional series A board consisted of two founders, two VCs, and one independent member. More recently the recipe is often one founder, one VC, and one independent. In either case the founders lose their majority.

But not always. Mark Zuckerberg kept control of Facebook’s board through the series A and still has it today. Mark Pincus has kept control of Zynga’s too. But are these just outliers? How common is it for founders to keep control after an A round? I’d heard of several cases among the companies we’ve funded, but I wasn’t sure how many there were, so I emailed the ycfounders list.

The replies surprised me. In a dozen companies we’ve funded, the founders still had a majority of the board seats after the series A round.

I feel like we’re at a tipping point here. A lot of VCs still act as if founders retaining board control after a series A is unheard-of. A lot of them try to make you feel bad if you even ask—as if you’re a noob or a control freak for wanting such a thing. But the founders I heard from aren’t noobs or control freaks. Or if they are, they are, like Mark Zuckerberg, the kind of noobs and control freaks VCs should be trying to fund more of.

Founders retaining control after a series A is clearly heard-of. And barring financial catastrophe, I think in the coming year it will become the norm.

Control of a company is a more complicated matter than simply outvoting other parties in board meetings. Investors usually get vetos over certain big decisions, like selling the company, regardless of how many board seats they have. And board votes are rarely split. Matters are decided in the discussion preceding the vote, not in the vote itself, which is usually unanimous. But if opinion is divided in such discussions, the side that knows it would lose in a vote will tend to be less insistent. That’s what board control means in practice. You don’t simply get to do whatever you want; the board still has to act in the interest of the shareholders; but if you have a majority of board seats, then your opinion about what’s in the interest of the shareholders will tend to prevail.

So while board control is not total control, it’s not imaginary either. There’s inevitably a difference in how things feel within the company. Which means if it becomes the norm for founders to retain board control after a series A, that will change the way things feel in the whole startup world.

The switch to the new norm may be surprisingly fast, because the startups that can retain control tend to be the best ones. They’re the ones that set the trends, both for other startups and for VCs.

A lot of the reason VCs are harsh when negotiating with startups is that they’re embarrassed to go back to their partners looking like they got beaten. When they sign a termsheet, they want to be able to brag about the good terms they got. A lot of them don’t care that much personally about whether founders keep board control. They just don’t want to seem like they had to make concessions. Which means if letting the founders keep control stops being perceived as a concession, it will rapidly become much more common.

Like a lot of changes that have been forced on VCs, this change won’t turn out to be as big a problem as they might think. VCs will still be able to convince; they just won’t be able to compel. And the startups where they have to resort to compulsion are not the ones that matter anyway. VCs make most of their money from a few big hits, and those aren’t them.

Knowing that founders will keep control of the board may even help VCs pick better. If they know they can’t fire the founders, they’ll have to choose founders they can trust. And that’s who they should have been choosing all along.

Thanks to Sam Altman, John Bautista, Trevor Blackwell, Paul Buchheit, Brian Chesky, Bill Clerico, Patrick Collison, Adam Goldstein, James Lindenbaum, Jessica Livingston, and Fred Wilson for reading drafts of this.