Ask HN: WWYD? Built a company valued at $1B and may walk away with nothing

122 points by susanwise ↗ HN
I'm looking for some "What Would You Do?" advice from the founder and investor community. Generally looking for guidance on what I should be negotiating for and what type of downside protection is fair, in any?

Financial Overview

- At our peak (Series C) we were valued at $1B post money - $187M raised by the company - $250M preference stack (liquidation prefs + debt) - I own ~27% of the business, and so does my co-founder. My co-founder is no longer part of the business day-to-day, he's on the board - We will end the year at $130M in annual revenues and burning ~$925K/month, we are a low gross profit margin business ~15-20%

Personal Overview - I live in New York City, it's been ~ 10 years that I have been on this journey, bootstrapped with no salary for about 2.5 years and pretty modest salary for most of the years, up until a couple years ago when I started getting "market rate" - I have not taken any chips off the table via any secondary sale up to this point, never really got the chance - Today, my base salary is $175K, no bonus, no stock refresh since the founder grant, fully vested stock, no severance, no indemnification. (Mainly because I just haven't asked for new comp b.c company is in a difficult spot) - In comparison, I hired a critical new C-Suite exec (COO) and gave her $285K/year, 75-150% annual target bonus, $150K sign on bonus, $200K funding closed bonus, 1-year severance, and a 4% equity stake in the business - I am starting to see some worrying signs of real burnout now (for myself)

State of the Union - We have < 6 months of runway based on our current burn, but majority of the money left is debt now - I am about to close on $30M of additional financing this month but the terms will decimate common stock holders (my 27% stake is likely going to go down to < 10%) - Still negotiating, but will likely have to give up board control so I could get fired immediately after financing is closed - We are in parallel exploring strategic M&A alternatives this year, but in the current market condition our business is likely worth less than the preference stack, in which case common stock is wiped out anyways and I get nothing. - Lastly, I'm not confident on the current strategy to grow out of the current problem over the next couple years, so there's a lot of risk in our growth for 2024 and beyond. The strategy I would want to run as CEO is likely not something my COO or board will want to get behind and frankly I don't know if I have the energy to do it myself. It would require 24-36 months to transition the business to the new world while watching old revenue decline and waiting for new higher margin revenue build up in parallel to offset the declining revenues in the core business.

My #1 priority is to get the financing closed for the business. But from there, I'm really confused and don't know what to do next. Doesn't seem to make sense for me to work my ass off just to return money to investors and have nothing for myself. But I do understand that it is my fiduciary obligation as the Founder/CEO, but maybe for the first time in 10 years I'm asking the question "What's in it for me?"

WWYD?

93 comments

[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 210 ms ] thread
Is it possible to cut costs in an extream way to make sure you're burning 0 per month? it is okay to let growth slow down or perhaps you may even lose some percent of your current revenue. It seems to be better than the alternative options. Perhaps get rid of the COO and other high fixed costs and hire later when you're in a better financial position
There is absolutely a way to do this but the new money coming in wants to keep as much revenue as possible to "preserve" valuation. We have already significantly cut revenue (~30%) last year in order to scale back costs. And the other concern is the more revenue you cut the more of a hole you have to climb out of to eclipse your preference stack. And cutting revenue while you are also trying to sell the company is going impact valuation.
Cutting burn would suggest not taking on extra investment, sitting out the dip and coming out a leaner, meaner but healthier company afterwards.

If you're going to be wiped out anyway then maybe that's a better bet?

Would you still need more financing if you cut costs enough? Are you able to cut costs enough to become profitable, cashflow positive and still grow revenues?
> And cutting revenue while you are also trying to sell the company is going impact valuation.

In all cases, you have to sit on your losses. What you need to think about is how much you're still wanting to risk for future profit.

I guess the point of the parent comment, is that one way to make sure you end with something is bring the business to profitability by cutting expenses right now to almost zero, and see how much revenue remains.

That profitable business would be:

1. making money for YOU, 2. and give you a much better view of how much you can sell it for.

In a world where money is no longer cheap and available, that may be a good idea to consider this option.

Losing control of the board and getting fired means you put that business in the hands of people who may not care about losing it all (and yours with it).

> We have already significantly cut revenue (~30%) last year in order to scale back costs

Something is wrong here. If your gross margin is positive this is a bad move, surely? Are you losing money on sales somehow or not including customer acquisition in that margin?

They probably cut a part of the revenue with negative margin.
why do you have to cut revenue? you can't continue your current ARR while cutting costs? trimming people/infra? maintenance mode for a while until you can ring better operational efficiencies out?
To you personally what's more beneficial?, also which sounds better?

- Cutting costs so you're burning 0 per month AND keep the 27%+ of the stock?

- Accepting 30M and all strings attached?

> And cutting revenue while you are also trying to sell the company is going impact valuation.

For you personally, which is worse?, the valuation drop or the stock dilution from extra money?, negotiate from there with everyone else, it's really not your company, you're a shareholder and employee, you should make sure you're properly compensated as well both as employee and as shareholder.

Also, it seems like even with the extra money, you're still going to need to address costs at some point?, but from a weaker position?

> There is absolutely a way to do this but the new money coming in wants to keep as much revenue as possible to "preserve" valuation.

The new money only has a say if you take it, and if you can get your burn rate to zero, then you may survive without new money.

So you might be able to choose what’s better for you and/or the existing investors: take the new money on its terms or make unpleasant cuts and keep going without new money. (And, of course, you personally can exit if that’s best for you.)

What is the product, did the market change for it the past few years? Is it growing organically? Is it B2B, B2C? The decisions seem so detached to whether people want whatever it is the company is selling. If honest it doesn't seem like the focus on what you want to do is right. It is one thing to put work in but that is not entirely causal to whether it is successful.
Using a throw away account.

I can feel with you.

Your story sound similar to mine, only that I could cash out some of my shares when a PE company took over, so I don't lose everything. I had to roll over some of my shares though, and these are close to worthless now. It's still painful getting more and more diluted in extreme down rounds, as business is running out of cash and debt is too high.

From my experience, it's inevitable that you will get diluted, you can't change that. It also does not matter what you have done for the business before, the investor persons won't care. What matters is the now and the future.

So focus on the future. You should align your salary and package with that of the COO. Your new shares could also have similar conditions as the new investor will etc. Discuss it with your current investors and the new ones. They don't want to write off their investment too, and certainly want to keep you on board?

I don't understand your fear that they will fire you? You will still keep your shares, and are free to do something new (and will probably earn much more).

You can only change the future. You seem to be a technical person (nothing wrong about that, I'm too :-)), a business person would have negotiated this a long time ago already, and multiple times.

> We will end the year at $130M in annual revenues and burning ~$925K/month

Sorry, I am confused. Is there a definition of "burning" that's different from "expense"? Cause based on those numbers, you guys are making a sound profit...

I assumed it meant they're losing $925k/month.
Ah right, of course...
I assume the burning amount is their net cash flow loss. That's still not that bad though. A margin of -8.5% isn't that big a loss, especially if they're able to raise financing that will last a couple years while they work to achieve profitability.
> A margin of -8.5% isn't that big a loss, especially if they're able to raise financing that will last a couple years while they work to achieve profitability.

But they have trouble doing that, given the remark “I am about to close on $30M of additional financing this month but the terms will decimate common stock holders”.

My guess would be that part of the reason is “~ 10 years that I have been on this journey”.

For many markets, that’s a long time for a company to become profitable.

It would seem the valuation is readjusting to the fact that they had to stop growing (and indeed lose revenue in tandem with cutting spending) to become profitable. Since they already have a 250 million dollar preference stack on the books, with another 30 million there won't be as much left for common stock holders at the new adjusted valuation.
Burning means they're losing money, about $11M annually in this case.
THat's 1M a MONTH, so $12M a year in annual losses.
maybe they mean they are spending 10.8m + 925K a month, though seems a weird way to say it. Still who am I to complain, communicative ability decreases with stress.
WWID?

I know nothing of this life path, but I think I would up my own salary to what I am worth, if I feel it is too low. What is your role? CEO?

Say you doubled your salary to $350k, then over 2 years that is $350k, or 10 days burn. Doubt anyone will notice.

Probably need to downsize a bit to get costs under control too?

Yes this sounds like an asshole move but I think it is an asshole "relative" to the very humble choices you have made so far, so a reversion to the mean, and I think the right thing to do.

Take care of yourself and your health especially.

The safest way would probably to find a way saving ~10% in cost through all means necessary while keeping revenues stable. If that's somehow possible, you stop burning cash and are not reliant on external investors anymore.

Maybe ask your employees? I'm sure they also don't want someone to come in and take control. And quite often, employees can think of creative ways to save money that the CEO doesn't know of.

As you describe your situation, your COO would be the perfect candidate to find that money.

B2B or B2C?

Is product actually good (i.e. your customers love it)?

Is it a want (vitamin) or a need (painkiller)?

If B2B, does it save money or generate money?

You have to talk to your current investors about this. They do not want to lose all their money and you are in charge. So they want you to be incentivised to take the best option for them. Getting your incentives aligned with theirs is in their best interest.
What do you think aligns those incentives in this example?
(comment deleted)
> My #1 priority is to get the financing closed for the business.

> The strategy I would want to run as CEO is likely not something my COO or board will want to get behind

I'd argue that your #1 priority as a CEO is building alignment between all stakeholders -yourself included- on the direction to move forward; everything else is downstream from that. If you close financing at terms you're not aligned with, with boardmembers who are signing up for a strat you are not aligned with, the business will be pushed into different directions, and shatter at these cross-forces.

I've seen this before, and the deterministic outcome from it is you parting ways with the company in 6-12 months' time, at which point it will be in a significantly worse shape / position than it is now.

Presently you have some level of movement freedom. I'd start by sketching out a strategy you think have a high expected value X probability of working, and a roadmap to getting there. I'd look for investors who are okay with signing up for that plan, at valuation that reflects the business's true value given that strategy is successful. Get people aligned with that goal, and execute on that.

The second issue, "What's in it for me?" flows downstream from above. If your own expected value for a successful outcome is no longer motivating for you, your incentives are at odds with the company. To align these, one useful question is: "Okay, you fire me today, find a competent CEO. What would that CEO ask for to drive this?". Sell your board on this question, and take that specific package -with the advantage of the company being that they don't have to go through the C-level search process. Operationally, this can include: a bonus for achieving milestones on the strategic roadmap, and market-level salary.

In short, I'd start with alignment. Everything else -including what's in it for you- flows from there.

I agree with much of this. Take the question to the investors and board, ie that your personal upside is being cratered and everyone is going to be pulling in different ditections.

If you have done and are doing a good job then everyone should want to put the right incentive plan in front of you.

Maybe you have to own the fact that valuations are down and the financing structure isn’t optimal, there is not really anyone to blame for that and a drop from the 20s to the 10s might be something you need to take on the chin. It’s still a good chunk of change.

Could you also look at pulling a some liquidity out during the next fund raise, with the above context set out. Most investors would appreciate the value of giving you some liquidity if you are still the guy to run it.

Thanks for this feedback. And maybe the pre-requisite to getting alignment, is to first get clarity on whether the new investor putting money in wants me as CEO to help get to the right outcome for everyone.
qq: was it not possible to take money off the table? AFAIK, it was common 2020-2021 that even series B raises let founders take some money off.
We just never did it and missed the moment. But honestly I look at it now and founders who have taken money off the table but have not or will not return money to investors...is that a better spot to be in? Because if you throw in the towel then, why would those investors EVER back you again. Maybe if early investors AND founders take some chips off the table you can better align incentives. But this whole secondary movement seems like a manifestation of a "cash is free" market we have been in for some time before the markets turned.
With only 5m in the bank, 12m burn and 130m in revenues, is there any way to optimize your cash flow? If you can get a 180 day line of credit from your suppliers your runway will look a lot better. Your suppliers are the only ones who care if you go out of business, and if you’ve worked with them for a long time they hopefully like you.

And you have to cut costs too. It’s not fun but you have to do it. Renegotiate every contract, and just stop paying for things that you don’t 100% need.

How much of your margins are COGS? How competitive is this industry? Do you sell big-ticket items to a small group of customers or the opposite? Is there room to raise prices a bit? If you told your customers that you're losing a million dollars every month and you might shut down soon, would they easily find alternatives or would they be in a bind themselves?

Why are you really raising money -- to make capital investments that will actually make the company profitable (operating basis)? If the first $187 million didn't do the trick, how & why will this extra $30 million do it? Or are you raising money just to keep the hamster wheel going a little longer?

Are your revenues growing? Or flatlined? 925k/month loss is an awfully specific number, is that better or worse than a year ago, or 6 months ago?

Big ticket, small group of customer ~100 customers. Some customers would be in a very tough spot.

The funding is to keep the hamster wheel going and the new amount will allow us to get to profitability.

Burn was and is much much higher than where we will end the year. (I'm learning) there's a lot of work that goes into getting cost out of the business while preserving as much revenue as possible. We just unfortunately haven't been able to cut cost our fast enough without having to be dependent on this next round of funding.

What kind of business are you in? Quite hard to understand without hearing what kind of thing you're doing.

Sounds like you want to buy yourself some runway, and the only way to do that is to let go of staff. Alternatively offer people equity-for-salary, because your equity ought to be cheap now.

Sounds pretty stressful, don't beat yourself up over it. Wanting to do well for the investors is good, but everyone knows about the principal-agent problem, and they could have aligned your incentives better. It's exactly this case they should have thought about, what do I do if the founder is in a position where they want to drop everything, blowing up the business, because they won't get anything out of it?

What exactly is the problem? If you walk away after raising the additional funding (and luckily the current market logic still says companies with no profit can still be worth billions), you'll end up with a still-substantial part of the company, which will be run by people who will have vested interest in making some sort of exit. Sounds like a win-win?
> We will end the year at $130M in annual revenues and burning ~$925K/month, we are a low gross profit margin business ~15-20%

The critical question is "what is your path to profitability?" You have seemingly a positive gross margin but negative net margin? What does the gap consist of?

> The strategy I would want to run as CEO is likely not something my COO or board will want to get behind and frankly I don't know if I have the energy to do it myself. It would require 24-36 months to transition the business to the new world while watching old revenue decline and waiting for new higher margin revenue build up in parallel to offset the declining revenues in the core business.

Are you familiar with the Nokia "burning platform" memo?

You have roughly four choices:

1) make the old pre-pivot business work (have positive net margin)

2) make the new post-pivot business work

3) raise more money through investor storytime, which is going to require a good answer to #1 or #2 and as you say carries risk of being diluted out

4) give up

5) a miracle occurs

I can feel that you're very tempted to do #4, which makes #3 harder as a very high level of self-belief is necessary. It seems there are problems with #2, and #1 hasn't made it after all this time.

Perhaps this is the time to get a bit confrontational with people to insist they get behind either #1 or #2 100%.

> maybe for the first time in 10 years I'm asking the question "What's in it for me?"

Bit late for that, sadly. "Selfless CEO" is just self-exploitation.

#3 and #4 are not mutually exclusive, There IS new money coming in (thankfully), but I can also "give up" after the money is in and the company is on more stable financial footing to execute Plan #1. But truthfully, I'm likely not the right CEO for Plan #1.
Thanks for sharing the Nokia "burning platform" memo, just read it.
Based on your description I did a search on public companies with roughly the same characteristics on Finviz and returned these 9:

FTCI SRT RBT ZEPP VIAO FEIM EMKR FKWL AAOI

The challenge is that you’ve invested $250M to produce a business that sounds like it’s worth $100+M today (if $30M in debt is going to wipe out half your equity).

As much as the ride has been thrilling and you’ve worked your tail off, from a performance perspective, investors look at the $250M in and $100ish M in current value and say “meh, not that great an entrepreneur, turns every buck I give them into fifty cents.”

The reason your COO and Board are skeptical of your plan is that your actual business that you have has proven to be low margin, which means you produce relatively low value over your cost of goods for your customers. So a fantastical plan where in the future you’ll provide LOTS of value to your customers seems speculative at best, foolhardy at worst.

From a personal perspective, your value as an entrepreneur / founder, will never again go up at your current company, only down. There is no scenario in which five years from now people are more impressed with what you’ve built than they are today.

Your personal best outcome, IMHO, is to sell as much as you can and take the personal exit. Hand the keys over to the COO for them to do the grinding turnaround over next five years. Take six months to recharge and come back into the market with something new. You’ll be able to raise at a higher valuation for a new business, and actually get paid a higher comp.

I don't think this is a public company ...
no, but it's good to compare with similar firms and see what numbers they are reporting!
Any investor or anyone close to the numbers of OPs company who may see this post could likely figure out who they are those if they are even close to accurate numbers shared.
Interestingly, the Board wants to continue the same play of slowly trying to turn the corner on a low gross margin business, versus a more drastic change to go after a new revenue/margin mix altogether. But regardless, I appreciate your candid feedback.
> The strategy I would want to run as CEO is likely not something my COO or board will want to get behind and frankly I don't know if I have the energy to do it myself.

Why would you want to keep a COO that isn't aligned with you?

> Still negotiating, but will likely have to give up board control

Then don't take it. You have control. Tell the investors / board this isn't a viable option. We all want to survive.

As others have said - cut cost or look for different types of financing where you'll do fine. If the investors really disagree they can get nothing out of it too so everyone needs to compromise.

> But I do understand that it is my fiduciary obligation as the Founder/CEO

As 1 of the largest shareholders it's your "fiduciary obligation" to make yourself happy. Why do you discount the shareholder side of you?

The simple fact is that 10 years in you need to become profitable or there’s no business. Todays market isn’t going to look kindly on a loss making startup of that vintage. The $1B valuation is long gone and realistically the company is probably worth less than the cash raised to date. As you’re finding there are folks that will provide ongoing funding, but they’re going to charge a price consistent with the risk they’re taking at this point.

Not trying to sound cold but that’s the reality of the market now. Probably no consolation, but there are a lot of startups in this position now. If you have IP that’s valuable you could explore an M&A exit. That typically won’t end in a giant cheque but will make folks whole and provide a graceful exit.

Thank you, was looking for exactly this direct feedback. And agreed, the value of the business is likely less than the money raised.
It's unclear to me why you're taking more funding on such bad terms.

You have 130M ARR and are only ~10% short of break-even at ~1M burn/mo, just tighten up the business and clean house a bit?

It because that's the burn number we will be at by the end of year, lots of cost cutting work to reach that number. And new investor is willing to write the check to execute on this plan but will get their fair share of skin for the risk.
> Today, my base salary is $175K, no bonus, no stock refresh since the founder grant, fully vested stock, no severance, no indemnification. (Mainly because I just haven't asked for new comp b.c company is in a difficult spot) - In comparison, I hired a critical new C-Suite exec (COO) and gave her $285K/year

Here is your problem.

Some founders milk company directly on bonuses and pay, there is no "grand exit" when they go public. I think you may be subconsciously aware of that, maybe there is some hidden regret or self-hate etc... Continuing with this frugality may not be way forward.

I would suggest:

- get out of NY, some nice environment near sea or forest, work remotely

- prepare for your exit. Move out of NY to minimize income tax etc..

- can you actually become CEO? If not, it is not your business anymore, not your problem

- find way to increase your take-home money. For start you could pay yourself for overtimes. Maybe if you move out of NY, you may need office there and so on...

- personal brand is worth quite a lot. Maybe there is way to use this startup to build your own.

A few people have said the same thing, why not bring costs down.

130M in ARR and you can't save 1M a month in burn? what is holding you back from letting go ~60 people and/or trimming other costs?

Raising on those terms, that dilution and no board seat, I would not do it.

If I have the math right, their revenue of $130m is made up of $110m in COGS. If they’re losing $1m/month that means they’re spending roughly $30m/year on running the business. My educated guess is most of that $30m is marketing spend required to secure the $130m revenue and cuttable costs (salaries, office space) are much less than $10m/year.

Sounds like ARR is the wrong term since it’s probably not a business operating on recurring revenue — probably an example of the bananas valuations of the last few years, based on revenue not viability.

Generally right here, just has a physical operating component to the business which makes COGS high. Think of it like e-commerce business where you are buying goods and shipping to customers. We can cut deeper, but new investors don't want to do that at he cost of revenue. In other words, I cannot materially cut costs without sacrificing revenue bc I have a fundamental GP problem that will take time to improve over several quarters.
You need to buy time. Right now your biggest priority is to stop losing money. Can you cut expenses or staff? Can you raise prices without losing all your customers? Can you get more customers? You need to act as if financing will not be available to you, because in honesty it might not be.

If you don't figure this out within the next few weeks, you will find yourself without any options and will need to either close the company or take whatever lowball offer you can get.

Just be brutally honest with yourself and do the right thing, what ever that intrinsically means for you.

Even if you don't believe in god, you have an unconscious that keeps a track of these things so act in a way where you might get/deserve chance to rebuild yourself after all of it.

P.S. I've been in a similar situation (smaller level) and the way I handled myself resulted in a downward spiral for years, never truly trusting myself to fully commit to anything while also not fully giving up. Basically running around in circles, each time losing a little bit of heart/spirit.

thank you for sharing this. tough to read but totally resonates. and hope you have found your footing now!
Dilute your cofounder to basically nothing and get yourself some preferreds as part of the debt raise.

It sucks but they’re no longer contributing and are a massive drag on the cap table.

I’d also get some generous equity for the COO if you’re going to hand it off to them. Tie it to the performance incentives you know the company needs to hit to be a success.