The spin off structure mystery

The spin off structure mystery

When spinning out a venture from a university or a corporate entity, the cap table composition plays a critical role in ensuring the startup’s long-term success and attractiveness to future investors. Here’s an overview of how such cap tables are typically structured and how stakes might be managed:

University Spin-Outs

Founders' Equity:

  • The founders, often including the academic researchers or inventors, should hold a significant portion of equity to reflect their ongoing commitment and to motivate them.
  • Commonly, founders should hold +50% of the equity, but this can vary depending on the number of founders and the university’s policies.

University Equity:

  • Universities typically retain a minority stake in the startup, often between 5-20%, as a reward for providing resources, labs, and IP.
  • It's important for universities to maintain minority stakes to avoid discouraging investors who might be wary of a university owning too much equity, as it could complicate decision-making and future funding rounds.

Investment Pool:

  • Allocate a portion of equity for early investors who provide the essential seed funding.
  • This pool might comprise 10-30% of the cap table, contingent on the investment size and terms.

Employee Stock Option Pool (ESOP):

  • Establish an ESOP to attract and retain key talent, typically holding 10-15% of equity.
  • Having a healthy option pool before the first significant funding round is crucial to align with industry norms and investor expectations.

Corporate Spin-Outs

Founders' Equity:

  • If the startup results from internal innovation, the founding team, which may include internal employees, should hold a meaningful equity share, often around 70% to 80%.
  • This provides them with the incentive to drive the venture's success post-spin-out.

Corporate Equity:

  • Corporates usually maintain a minority stake, ranging from 10-25%, to reflect their initial contribution while avoiding over-influence in day-to-day operations.
  • Maintaining a minority position is important to give the venture operational independence, which is often crucial for agility and innovation.

External Investors:

  • A portion of equity should be reserved for external investors, who may contribute seed or Series A funding.
  • This pool should be structured similarly to university spin-outs, with investors potentially taking +40%, depending on the capital required and the stage of development.

Employee Stock Option Pool (ESOP):

Similar to university spin-outs, an ESOP of 10-15% is often allocated to incentivize team members and attract new talent necessary for scaling the business.

Key Considerations for Future Funding Rounds

  • Equity Incentives: Ensuring that founders and employees are adequately incentivized with significant equity stakes is crucial for maintaining their motivation and for attracting top talent.
  • Majority vs. Minority Stakes: Keeping corporate or university stakes as minority positions helps maintain operational flexibility and managerial control within the startup, making it more appealing to investors.
  • Flexibility for Investors: The cap table should be structured to accommodate future investors' entry, allowing for additional dilution without major disruption to control or governance.
  • Governance and Control: Establish clear governance structures that prevent any single entity from having an overpowering say in strategic decisions unless there's a strategic reason for such control.

Clare McKitrick

Leadership. People. Culture. Delivery.

1 周

Hey Stephen Hampson curious on your perspective on this...

What you describe as best practice is, in my view, one of the main reasons for the misfortunes of spinoffs in Germany. Allowing unis and corps to hold 20-40% of a spinoff as a reward for past efforts makes spun-off companies almost unfundable in the real world - and justly so. Because in the real world, two-digit shareholders are required to follow up in future rounds; they feverishly support founders in fundraising; they do everything to push sales and support the team. In other words: shares incentivise them for the future; they are not payment for things done in the past. If I see a cap table that has 30% of dead weight owned by entities that will not contribute to the company's future but rather sit back and wait for others to fuel the engine, I'm out. In my opinion, anything above 10% gets problematic - UNLESS the shareholder acts like a real, committed investor who's ready to do all the things above. Now show me a German uni or corp that is!

要查看或添加评论,请登录