The Options for Options

Sim Simeonov has a nice post on the subject of what is the best option vesting schedule. Options are a topic that has received a lot of attention in the blogosphere. A while back there was a lengthy discussion of options on Fred Wilson’s blog that, as I recall revolved around the need to think of option grants as percentages of the equity of the issuer (rather than in numbers of shares.  The EEC blog has many posts on options (and the related topic of restricted stock). All these posts tend to focus on some discrete aspect of options that came up in the author’s business. For a more general discussion, you can go to the Emerging Enterprise Center web site under "Ask the Start-up Lawyer." There you will find a general overview of the basics.

Startup Tools from Fastignite

For those of you who know Sim Simeonov, you won’t be surprised or disappointed. He has developed and posed on his site, fastignite.com , a set of start-up tools together with commentary. The tools are good; the commentary is better. The initial set of tools covers (1) calculating true pre-money valuation, (2) getting a better Series A deal, (3) a vesting calculator for options and restricted stock, and (4) option exercise and sale.

With respect to the true pre and post money valuation, Sim points out that Fred Wilson has an insightful post on this topic. I think I agree with what Sim and Fred say on the subject, but I also think it sounds more ominous than it is. Keep in mind that the investor is assuming you will have to spend equity to attract talent. This is analogous to having to spend money for capital expenditures. It has to be a budgeted cost and has to be "in the mix" when you negotiate your deal. Your investor will not overlook this "cost." It will be built into the investor’s valuation assumptions. You just need to look at it the same way. A company that needs to spend money to acquire and IP license is not going to get the same valuation as one that does not (all other factors being equal).

Options and more options

Here is an interesting post by Chris Dixon on options.  Well worth the read.  Having said that, I don't change my advice to the effect that the option grant (and the offer letter or whatever) needs to state the number of shares that can be acquired with the option.  If you want to elaborate on that and state that such number represents thus and such a percentage of the company's outstanding shares on a particular day -- fine.

Tags:

Option and percents

I am coming back to one of my personal bugbears. Clients seem to have a positive desire to express option grants in terms of a percentage of the company, as in "You will receive options to purchase 5% shares of Common Stock of the Company…" The problem is 5% of what? As of when? Usually clients resort the percentage expression precisely because there is some ambiguity in the cap table. This ambiguity is usually around some new money coming in. For example, is it to be 5% before or after the bridge note is converted? Before or after the next round of financing? Or what? I can testify that I have experience and employee pulling out such an offer letter years later at a multihundred million dollar exit and try to claim a percent rather than the number of options he actually had. Now, it did not take long to straighten him out, but do you really want to?

Option repricing

Here is a link to an article about option repricing. Intel and other big public tech companies are doing it. Options are supposed to provide employees with an incentive to improve results and thereby increase stock value. In a sense, they align the employee interests with the stockholder interests. On the one hand, underwater option provide little (maybe no) incentive to employees. On the other hand, if you reprice downward when there is a market decline, you protect employees from the downside risk in a way that you don’t (and can’t) protect common stockholders. You can pick your poison.

Good housekeeping -- keep your legal house in order

A signature is worth a thousand words

“Sally is calling all our customers.”

“Does she have a noncompete?”

“Yes.’

“Does the noncompete say she can’t call our customers for one year after she leaves?”

“Yes”

"Ok, let's call the lawyer."

Silence...

“Did she sign the noncompete?”

Silence….

Continue Reading...

Options and 409A -- Sometimes the law is an ass

Sometimes practical reality and legal niceties collide like trains guided by Chas Adams. Here is a typical situation that must happen on a daily basis somewhere: I recently had a start up client call up and say that he wants to issue options to a new employee. The company was founded a couple of months ago, founder shares were issued, IP was contributed, options were offered, new guy was hired, client wants to know how to price the options. Enter Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code which provides that the options must have an exercise price not less than the fair market value of the stock and fair market value be determined “by the reasonable application of a reasonable valuation method.”

Client: “OK, you’re my lawyer, how do I do that?”

Continue Reading...

The Trouble with Options

Everyone wants “incentive stock options” (as such term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code) as opposed to non-qualified options, because of the potential to capture capital gains tax treatment after the exercise of the incentive stock options and the eventual sale of the underlying stock. The option holder hopes to pay capital gains tax (as opposed to income tax) on the difference between the exercise price of the option and the price at which the underlying stock is eventually sold. So, if you have options to purchase 100,000 shares the Mighty Software Corporation with an exercise price of $.20 per share when Mighty is sold to Microsoft for $2.00 per share, your hope is to realize $180,000 of profit. If you are taxed at the current long term capital gains tax rate of 15% you would pay $27,000 in tax and keep $153,000. Compare this result to paying tax at the highest marginal rate of 35%. $180,000 multiplied by .35 is $63,000. In this scenario, you keep $117,000 (or $36,000 less than if you had paid tax at the capital gains rate). 

The dirty little secret of incentive stock options is that the holder must comply with a variety of requirements under the Internal Revenue Code to actually get capital gains treatment. Among these requirements, is a holding period requirement the effect of which is to prevent the option holder from getting capital gains treatment in almost all cases. The holding period requirement is that one must hold the stock obtained upon exercise an incentive stock option for a minimum of one year in order to get capital gains treatment. In fact, you have to hold the option and the stock for a combination of two years, but at least one year has to be after exercise.

Continue Reading...

More on Restricted Stock and 83(b)

I spend a lot of time with entrepreneurs explaining how restricted stock and Section 83(b) or the tax code work. It was the subject of a prior blog entry. However, it comes up so often and different people absorb the concept in different ways, so I thought it might be worth attacking again in a different way. Restricted stock can have some very material tax benefits when compared with options, especially in the early stages of any venture. So, here is how restricted stock works. I will compare it to options later.

You may want to incent employees by giving them stock. Here is an example. Easy Company decides to incentivize one of its employees by giving her a stake in the company. It then grants to Jane 100,000 shares (assume for the purposes of this example that the shares have a fair market value of $.01 per share). Two things follow. First, Jane owns the stock and, in our example, has no particular incentive to stay of the sort associated with vesting. Second, Jane has income equal to the value of the shares of stock she has been given. In this example she has income of $1,000. Easy Company must report (and withhold taxes for) this income on Jane’s Form W-2  for the year in which she was given the stock, and Jane must pay tax on that income. Now, $1,000 of income does not seem like much, but if the stock had a fair market value of $1.00 per share, Jane would have $100,000 of income on which she would owe tax. If her marginal tax rate is 40%, then she has to pay $40,000 of tax to the feds.

Continue Reading...

Advisory Board Options

A question that comes up with some frequency is how many options to grant to an advisory board member. One of my partners advises his start up clients not to issue more than 1% of a company’s equity to the entire advisory board. I think this is a pretty good goal. My experience, however, is that some advisory board members should be paid more than others because they ad more value, either because they undertake to do more than others or because they bring more visibility and credibility than others. One advisory board member that I know insists on half of a percent for her commitment, but she is a rock star in her industry and agrees to make phone calls and provide introductions. In effect, she adds more value than simply her good advice. So, those are some guideposts, but when considering a new advisory board member you should consider the contribution that is expected as well as the dilutive effect of the option grant.

11/04/08 update -- One of my start-up clients just faced this issue and settled on a pool of 1.5% for all advisory board options.

Restricted Stock versus Options

One thing that I find many entrepreneurs (particularly first time entrepreneurs) struggle with is the distinction between options and restricted stock and why one would use restricted stock instead of options.  See also the following link:  Stock Options and Restricted Stock.

I think it is fair to say that most, perhaps all, entrepreneurs have heard of options.  But, just in case, options are contractual rights to purchase shares of stock (usually common stock) at a fixed price.  In the employment context, options typically vest over time.  For example, four year vesting is a common provision in a venture financed company.  A typical arrangement would be for options to vest 1/4 on the first anniversary of employment  and 3/4 ratably (monthly or quarterly) over the subsequent 3 years.  This is the arrangement included in the National Venture Capital Association form of Term Sheet. Vesting refers to the right to exercise the option and purchase stock at the option price.  Since the employee cannot exercise options unless they are vested, to the extent that options have value, the employee is motivated to remain with the company and realize that value.

Restricted stock is actual stock (as opposed to options which are a right to acquire stock).  Restricted stock can be made to provide an incentive similar to that of options by requiring, as a condition to the grant of restricted stock, that the employee receiving the restricted stock enter into an agreement providing for "vesting."  In the context of restricted stock, it is often referred to as "reverse vesting" and it works like this:  The employee is granted shares of common stock subject to the condition that the company will have the right to buy back the shares at a trivial price (often par value).  The concept of reverse vesting comes in because the company loses its repurchase rights over time.  So, on the first anniversary of employment the company may loose the right with respect to 1/4 of the shares and so on.  In this way restricted stock mimics options.

Having said all this, there are important tax differences between options and restricted stock.  Options can be incentive stock options or non-qualified options.  Incentive stock options are options that meet certain requirements set forth in the internal revenue code and, if all conditions are met, can provide the option holder with capital gains treatment (as opposed to ordinary income treatment) upon the sale of stock acquired through the exercise of these options.  Among the requirements are that the options be held for at least one year and that the stock acquired upon exercise of the options be held for at least one year.  Since most option holders commonly sell the stock they acquire promptly upon exercise of the option, they rarely achieve capital gains on the excess of the sale price of the stock over the exercise price of the option.  Non-qualified options do not provide the possibility of achieving capital gains treatment on the excess of the sale price of the stock over the exercise price of the option (although you might, depending on how long you hold the stock, achieve capital gains on the difference between the fair market value on the date of exercise of the non-qualified option and the eventual sale price of the stock).

With respect to restricted stock, the holding period for capital gains treatment begins upon the date of grant, if the holder files a so-called 83(b) election under Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code.  As a result, most employees who are granted restricted stock will achieve capital gains treatment.  The dark lining on this silver cloud, however, is that when you file an 83(b) election you must take the then fair market value of the stock into income (for purposes of income tax) without regard to whether or not it is vested.  So, if the stock has a high value, the employee receiving the stock will have a lot of income and no cash to pay the tax.  If the 83(b) election is not made, then the employee has to take into income the fair market value of each share of stock at the time that it vests.  If the value of the stock is increasing (as with the customary hockey stick projections) you can imagine that the income to be realized could become substantial.  To avoid these situations, use option grants.  However, early in the life of a company, its stock may have little value, with the result that using restricted stock and increasing the odds of getting capital gains upon a sale of the stock may make good sense.