Tag Archives: Equity

A typical success story (not Silicon Valley though)

Leave a reply

I just learnt about Isilon yesterday. It certainly shows how disconnected I have been from the start-up world these days :-(. Isilon was backed by Atlas and Sequoia and went public in December 2006. It finally got acquired this week by EMC for $2.2B!

Fred Destin mentions about Isilon in his blog so you will find more info there. What I did since yesterday is looking at the company numbers since its foundation in 2001. So first, here is its stock price history as well as its revenue/profit numbers.

It was not an easy success story. Following its IPO, the company missed its numbers, lost money (no profit) until this year so that the stock price does not show a nice growing curve (even if the VCs always had a nice multiple on their investment). But the company had to wait until the acquisition by EMC to see happy employees and investors. Destin claims Atlas will finally make a 22x multiple over its investment.

What is for me (and I hope for you too!) of interest is the shareholding structure that the next table illustrates. You will have to click on it to read the details. (As usual, if you want the excel file, just ask me).

What the IPO prospectus did not say is as interesting as the rich information it provides:
– not much info on the series A and B, except the total amount, but I could not distinguish Atlas, Madrona and Sequoia investments. It would probably possible to guess the real numbers as Sequoia invested (and probably led) in the series B whereas Atlas and Madrona invested in the Series A. With prorata rules, you can make your own guess.
– Paul Mikesell, a co-founder, is not mentioned anywhere so I have no clue how much he owns/owned of the company…

Finally, Isilon was not based in Silicon Valley, but in Seattle. It’s interesting to connect this to a recent post by Bill Curley entilted the Silicon Valley IPO’s anxiety. Though Silicon Valley remains a craddle of innovation, the ratio of IPOs its experiences compared to the rest of the USA, is quite low and Curley has some explanations.

PS (November 18): I was wrong, there was more information available online: I could find the precise allocation of preferred stocks (notice there was a 2.4 stock split) and in addition Mikesell is mentioned…

The Social Network

2 Replies

The new movie about Facebook’s founder, Mark Zuckerberg, is a great movie. It does not matter so much if it is a description of reality. You may watch it as a piece of fiction, and it would remain a great movie thanks to the actors and screenplay.

It is also great because it describes the start-up world in a very accurate manner. It is not a movie about start-ups really, but there are details which reminds me a lot of real-life stories.

The first lesson is that money and friendship seldom work together. The stories of Eduardo Saverin, the founder soon to be diluted, Sean Parker, the exhuberant founder of Napster and Plaxo and mentor of Zuckenberg and the short appearance of Peter Thiel are such examples.

It also shows the old world of Boston where people think ideas are crucial and the new world of Silicon Valley where what matters is implementation. It’s why Silicon Valley is the Triumph of the Nerds. It shows how right Paul Graham is when he says Silicon Valley is about nerds and money. You see the crazy, sad, exciting, depressing life of these hard-working people. You may like it or not, but it is mostly what start-ups are about.

I just looked for what some key people thought of the movie. So, for example, Eduardo Saverin said here: “The Social Network” was bigger and more important than whether the scenes and details included in the script were accurate. After all, the movie was clearly intended to be entertainment and not a fact-based documentary. What struck me most was not what happened – and what did not – and who said what to whom and why. The true takeaway for me was that entrepreneurship and creativity, however complicated, difficult or tortured to execute, are perhaps the most important drivers of business today and the growth of our economy.”

And Dustin Moskovitz said there: It is interesting to see my past rewritten in a way that emphasizes things that didn’t matter (like the Winklevosses, who I’ve still never even met and had no part in the work we did to create the site over the past 6 years) and leaves out things that really did (like the many other people in our lives at the time, who supported us in innumerable ways). Other than that, it’s just cool to see a dramatization of history. A lot of exciting things happened in 2004, but mostly we just worked a lot and stressed out about things; the version in the trailer seems a lot more exciting, so I’m just going to choose to remember that we drank ourselves silly and had a lot of sex with coeds. […] I’m very curious to see how Mark turns out in the end – the plot of the book/script unabashedly attack him, but I actually felt like a lot of his positive qualities come out truthfully in the trailer (soundtrack aside). At the end of the day, they cannot help but portray him as the driven, forward-thinking genius that he is. And the Ad Board *does* owe him some recognition, dammit.

And Zuckerberg himself!

Watch live video from c3oorg on Justin.tv
This is from Garham’s start-up school and here is part 2

Watch live video from c3oorg on Justin.tv

Of course, this looks like corporate language, we should remember these guys have FaceBook shares! Talking about shares, there was another thing I did not like recently, the fact that according to Forbes, Zuckerberg would be richer than Steve Jobs. I had a discussion with a friend over the week end and he agreed with the statement whereas I disagreed. It may be a detail: but as long as Facebook is not quoted, Zuckerberg’s wealth is mostly paper value he can not really trade. I am sure he is already rich, he probably has already monetized some of his shares but not all of them whereas Jobs owns shares which are liquid. It may not be a big difference given the success of Facebook, but I have seen to many stories of start-ups where people thought the paper value of the stock was real wealth and the next day worth nothing…

When my daughter told me yesterday, she might at least explain her friends what her dad was doing. i.e. working in the world of start-ups, I thought the movie had at least reached that goal of reaching a large audience towards this important topic!

Final point, a recurrent topic in my blog: Facebook cap. table and shareholder structure. As Facebook is private, it is a challenge to know what’s true and what’s myth. I have still tried the exercice from what the Internet gives. One interesting feature is Saverin’s dilution from 30% to 5% whereas Zuckerberg went from 65% to 24%, not really pro-rata! We shall see when Facebook goes public, who wrong I was!

Intuitive Surgical

1 Reply

Here is a start-up that I heard about through various channels. As I am not an expert of medical technologies, it is not too surprising that this 15-year old, $10B company was unknown to me. You can learn more about Intuitive Surgical from their website or from answer.com. 15-year old? You may tell me it is not a start-up anymore, but it surely was! as I often do when I discover such companies, I studied its growth and its capital structure at IPO. Here they are:

What is interesting is that despite its impressive growth, Intuitive’s IPO was not a huge success. It raised little money at a price per share which is not the typical $14 that I often see with Nasdaq IPOs. It was only $9 per share. When I published this blog it was at $275!! (see the chart at the bottom of the post)

Final comment, Intuitive was based on technologies from research centers, which licensed these against equity. You may be interested in what MIT and SRI International got for their IP.

Skype IPO filing

Leave a reply

What’s interesting about Skype new filing in addition to all the comments you may find is their current cap. table and investor structure. I hope we will know more about all this when the company files additional material. For the moment, here are the numbers I could built from their S-1 document dated August 9. It is obvisouly very different from what I published at the time of acquisition by eBay. See my post of April 2008.

First the investors:

Second the full cap.table if Skype was going public at the price paid by the investors to buy Skype from eBay:

I will publish more when/if the company goes public…

University licensing to start-ups – part 2

1 Reply

As an addition to the post, dated May 4, 2010, I’d like to add a few slides which describe visually the balance between royalties and equity (with some possible antidilution). If you did not have the previous pdf slides, you should check my previous post first. What these new slides show are linear variations of the equity-royalty (possible) balance.

It may not be universally accepted, but in a way more royalty induces less equity and more equity induces less royalty. Also there may be an anti-dilution mechanism:
– many universities state the equity level will stay the same up to a given amount of money invested or up to the 1st round of funding. Given the habit of investors of taking 30-50% of the company after the 1st round, you can compute back how much equity it would have been at incorporation.
– one university, UNC, and I mentioned that in the comment to my post, asks for antidilution until exit at the 0.75% level. Interesting!

What is also interesting is that globally, Stanford, Caltech, Carnegie Mellon and UNC are very similar (small royalties) and MIT may appear as similar for equity but higher for royalties. All this should be handled with care but is probably not too far from a good summary…

So my visuals are not perfect, neither my comments above, but if I am not clear, just contact me! You can download the pdf slides or click on the picture that follows.

University licensing to start-ups

3 Replies

There’s been a long standing and passionate debate about what universities “deserve” when they license technologies to start-ups. There is the famous Google vs. Yahoo comparison where Google is an official Stanford spin-off which brought $336M in revenue from the equity the university owned in the start-up whereas Yahoo was considered as a hobby of the founders and no intellectual property was owned by the university. However one Yahoo founder gave some $75M to Stanford.

So what is a typical license between a university and start-up? Well there is no clear answer but the attached pdf file may be of help. I have done some search and found some info, mostly from US universities. I have also tried to find the rationals for or against such deals. The debate remains open and I do not expect a general agreement any time soon. But I hope this is contributing to the topic.

Maxlinear IPO and shareholders

Leave a reply

Maxlinear is new technology company going public and good news, it is a semiconductor company. You will find all the info you need on the web. Xconomy most recently annouced the Maxlinear IPO: MaxLinear IPO Prices Stock Above Range at $14 a Share

So here is my usual and favorite work on such companies: its equity structure, its investment story together with the pie chart. I have done it fast so I do not promise it is out of mistakes but it gives once again a good view on how founders, investors and employees are diluted.

Tesla Motors and Paypal, a tale of two founders

Leave a reply

Tesla Motors recently filed to go public. Behind the success story is a strange tale of founders. You should read first the Wikipedia page about Tesla. You will see that there are five founders. Because there’s been a litigation and a judge decision, it shows that defining a founder is not so easy. My definition of founders would be limited to Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning, but because their initial business angel has become the CEO, it is more complex according to the judge.

What is even more interesting is that Elon Musk, the BA and CEO, was a founder of Paypal, or more precisely of one of the two start-ups which merged to give Paypal (X.com and Confinity). Then he was fired or left Paypal, similarly to what Musk did to Eberhard and Tarppening. Amazing, no?

So I provide here two cap tables! The Tesla one first and the Paypal one follows. I hope you will appreciate the information and you can react about founders, investors and the sometimes sad stories behind the scene of success stories…

First the Tesla equity tables and investors. Click on the pictures to read them!

The reason why there are green cells is because the company is not public yet. So the IPO date and price per share are fictitious. I do not know how much the founders exactly have but there was apparently about 8M founders’ shares. Now the company has raised a lot of money:

Finally, here is how the share dilution occured:

Am I doing here a Freudian analysis? Whatever is the Paypal stories through the X.com and confinity merger:

The equity table

and the investors

The beauty of all this is that behind the numbers, their complexity, there are many untold stories about founders, business angels, investors and success. React…

A123, Boston and Atlas

Leave a reply

I just met this morning Fred Destin in the beautiful Rolex Learning Center at EPFL. We both have a passion for entrepreneurs and architecture!

Fred told me he liked my equity tables and pies (check skype, mysql, Kelkoo, Synopsys, Genentech, Adobe, or the general one.

So as a small gift to Fred who is moving to the Atlas office in Boston this summer, here is the equity case of A123 Systems, an MIT spin-off which went public last September.

I am aware the pictures are not very nice but you can enlarge them and ask me for the excel file…

A European in Silicon Valley, Aart de Geus

1 Reply

Here is my fourth contribution to Créateurs, the Geneva newsletter, where I have been asked to write short articles about famous success stories. After women and high-tech entrepreneurship, Adobe and Genentech, here is Aart de Geus, founder of Synopsys.

Aart de Geus was born in the Netherlands in 1954. At the age of 4, he moved with his parents to french-speaking Switzerland and in 1978, he graduated from EPFL, the Swiss Institute of technology in Lausanne (where I currently work). He then moved again to the USA and got his PhD from the Southern Methodist University in Texas. After a few years with General Electric (GE), he founded Synopsys in 1986, raised $15M of venture-capital before Synopsys went public (in 1994). In 2008, Synopsys had 5’600 employees, $1.3B in sales and a $3B market capilalization.

According to him, « Everybody from Europe who comes to the U.S. or Canada is looking to discover something ». In his case, when he arrived to the USA, he was lucky in being assigned as a graduate student to Ron Rohrer “He took a liking to me. […] Rohrer essentially gave me the freedom to do whatever I wanted within the graduate school research facilities”. Rohrer became his mentor. He learnt how to manage a team, a know-how he changed in a management style. “everybody counts on the team and there’s always a role for everybody, which produces an ecosystem that manages itself.” He recognizes it is as much luck as destiny.

He also shows how difficult it is to predict anything: “In fact, I’ll tell you a story. In 1978 or ‘79, I attended a conference in Switzerland of leaders in the field of electronics, or microelectronics. They all agreed on 2 things. Number 1, electronics was going to be a big deal and would move forward for many years to come. Number 2, one micron was the hardest barrier that we would never move across. And [laughing again], those same people who made the predictions are the ones who made 22 nanometers happen!” and he adds: “The lesson here: whenever one predicts the end of something in high tech, there’s always a twist or new perspective that makes a new breakthrough possible.”


Aart de Geus, a born entrepreneur?

The art of metamorphosis…

Aart appreciates complexity and metamorphosis. Everything is important and everything changes. In the early days of a start-up, ideas and people matter. When you have an idea, what do you do? “First, you write a business plan. Then, you ask, is it ethical? Is it okay to do that? How do you go about planning the business so as not to go up against GE?” Well, according to Aart, “there’s a simple answer. You write a business plan and propose it to GE. After all, it was clearly their IP. Period.” GE not only backed the idea but invested in it. Money and values are essential at that stage.

But the baby has to grow. The teenager will have to develop the products, sell them to customers. This may be a tough crisis. Does Aart feel lucky to have survived? “Luck favors the well prepared,” and added that a fortuitous combination of management, graduate students, geographic location, viable business plan, and marketing expertise were augmented by having the “right technology at the right time.”


Back to EFPL in 2007.

… with the risk of becoming a dinosaur !

The adult age means processes, experienced managers so you need to survive the tornadoes that Geoffrey Moore describes so well. Aart summarizes these permanent metamorphoses through a parallel management of teams, customers, investors, products and their cycles, but also managers, leaders, implementation. All these things are interdependant and it is often underestimated. In a talk he gave to EPFL in 2007, he showed the history of Synopsys acquisitions in the form of the animal below! His sense of humour was certainly very useful. This sense of humour hides the humbleness of the individual who succeeded without giving any lesson. If there is one lesson in all this, is that you must try, be curious and flexible. Success may come.

As usual, I finish with my beloved capitalization table and charts.

Sources :
-Aart de Geus at l’EPFL (vpiv.epfl.ch)
-Peggy Aycinena (www.eetimes.com)
The Aart of Analogy is alive and well at Synopsys -2001
The Aart of Analogy Revisited -2009

Next article: A Swiss in Silicon Valley