Here is an updated version of my equity tables from startups which filed to go public at some point. There are about 525 individual companies as well as just below statistical synthesis relatively to fields, geography and periods of time about VC amounts, time to IPO, levels of sales and income at IPO (as well as PS and PE ratios), age of founders, number of founders, ownership in companies by catagories. I think ths may be of interest for some of you…
Following my traditional analysis of startups through their IPO filings documents (you can check my 2017 analysis on 400+ documents here or the tag #equity on this blog), here is an updated analysis with 500+ start-ups.
You can have a look at the full 500 cap. tables on scribd or look at a shorter synthesis which follows.I hope this is self-explanatory enough.
Uber’s S-1 has just been released. I jumped on the opportunity to analyze the shareholding of the startup, a thing I had tried to do in 2017 (with much less information – check here). Here are the figures that I found (subject to errors related to my possible too much eagerness…)
And, if you do not have the courage to read my post What is the equity structure of Uber and Airbnb?, here is what I understood in March 2017:
Lyft is the first Unicorn which published its S-1 document, i.e. its IPO filing. Is this good news or bad news? Lyft is impressive, two founders who were 22 and 23 when they co-founded their start-up 12 years ago have reached more than $2B in sales with a little less than 5’000 employees in 2018. This is the good part. The less good piece is it took the company more than $5B in equity investment and the reason is simple: Lyft has lost $900M in 2018, and more than $600M in both 2017 and 2016. This is more than $2B cumulative loss. I assume losses were pretty high in the previous years too. YOu can have a look at the cap. table I built from the S-1:
I read recently an article by Tim O’Reilly: The fundamental problem with Silicon Valley’s favorite growth strategy. O’Reilly has doubts about Reid Hoffman and Chris Yeh’s claiming that Blitzscaling would be the secret of success for today’s technology businesses. “Imagine, for a moment, a world in which Uber and Lyft hadn’t been able to raise billions of dollars in a winner-takes-all race to dominate the online ride-hailing market. How might that market have developed differently?” I have the same doubts about this crazy strategy but who am I to say?…
As some of you may know, I love to crunch data. Among my hobbies are cap. tables of startups which went or at least filed to go public. I have now more than 450 such companies and you can have a look at a recent summary of 400+ such companies in Equity in Startups. In the recent days, I had a look at startups going public on European stock exchanges (Paris, Amsterdam) through their IPO prospectus. What a difference to Nasdaq based S-1 filings! So much less information that it was frustrating to me. Here are the examples of Cellectis, Kalray and Adyen.
I am not sure you will take the time to have a look, but knowing how much founders, employees, investors own in these startups is more complex than Nasdaq-based ones. Just have a look at the difference between Cellectis going public in PAris in 2007 and then in 2015 on Nasdaq.
How can you read who are the people behind all these stuctures in Adyen shareholding?
And why are the past rounds not available more systematically…?
Should you want to have a look at more data, here are the 450+ cap. tables!!
In the recent years, there had been regular filings in the biotech field, but IT had suffered. then Dropbox and Spotify filed and successfully went public. This probably gave confidence to “unicorns” and many have filed recently such as Smartsheet, DocuSign, Zuora. Carbon Black is the latest one with an interesting history. here is its S-1 filing and below my computed cap. table.
Carbon Black was founded in 2002, has raised close to $200M since inception (not counting the money raised by 4 startups is has acquired, Confer Technologies, Objective Logistics & VisiTrend). It has a royal list of VCs, including Kleiner Perkins, Sequoia, Highland, Atlas or lesser know funds such as .406 or Accomplice. I do not know who the founders were, but I could get the name of Todd Brennan who has left in 2008. Who else, help me! Finally the company is based close to Boston, not in Silicon Valley… This is just the latest of my compilations, that you may find in a previous post Equity in Startups.
Sensirion finally announces its IPO. The spin-off from ETH Zurich was founded in 1998 and many were expecting such an event from a very succesful but quite discrete company. Sensirion has disclosed some numbers and I had followed the development of the company thanks to some data from the Zurich register of commerce. So as usual here is my guess of the capitalization table. And I look forward to compare it with the data from the IPO prospectus when it will be published…
Again this is guessing only. As you might see, the early funding rounds are unknown to me. I am not sure about how many shares the founders, main investor and employees have adn I am not sure either at which price the company will be priced. I based my numbers on about twice the company sales in 2017… The company claims Knoch has 55% of the company, the founders 14% and employees 8.5%. It does not look to far…
The Sensirion IPO prospectus is not public and is confidential so I cannot publish more than I have here. I can only write I was not too far from the truth despite some discrepancy…
A few days after Dropbox filing for an IPO, here is Spotify. Their F-1 can be found here. The data from the filing document is not exhaustive enough for me, many pas financing rounds are not described but the Luxembourg register of commerce helps too.
Just like for Dropbox, this is a filing only, so the price per share is tentative and the valuation is not fixed yet. The price per share could probably go from €20 to €100…
I just read the news and as this is one of the long awaited filing, I make it short, here is the cap.table I guesses from the S-1 filing.
I recently read an article mentioning a new report by Index Ventures Rémunération du risque : la France s’en sort bien ! and a few days later a student of mine mentioned a new app by Index to help entrepreneurs allocate stock options: Index Ventures Option Plan beta. Thanks Javier! I had a look, tweeted about it and then thought it was worth a blog article…
I advise you to read the full (143-page) report – link here. It includes great information at the macro (national policy) and micro (startup) level. There are minor differences with my past analyses such Equity in Startups published in Sept. 2017 or my recurrent class about Equity Split in Startups which you can find here:
What is particularly interesting, I think, is their summary:
1 European employees own less of the companies they work for than US employees. For late-stage startups, they own around 10%, versus 20% in the US.
2 Ownership levels vary much more in Europe than the US. In Europe, employee ownership in late-stage startups ranges from 4% to 20%. In the US, ownership is more consistent, as stock option allocation is driven by market forces.
3 Employee ownership correlates to how deeply technical a startup is. An AI or enterprise software startup requires more technical know-how than a straightforward e-commerce startup. These employees are more likely to seek stock options.
4 Ownership policy details adopted by startups vary between the US and Europe. For example, provisions for leavers, and accelerated vesting following a change in control.
5 In Europe, stock options are executive-biased. Two-thirds of stock options are allocated to executives, and one third to employees below executive level. In the US, it’s the reverse.
6 European employees still don’t expect stock options much of the time. US employees joining a tech startup with fewer than 100 staff would typically expect stock options straight away. This is much less true in Europe, although expectations are steadily rising.
7 European option holders are often disadvantaged. In much of Europe, employees will be paying a high strike price, and they will be taxed heavily upon exercise as well as sale. Leavers often get nothing.
8 There is wide variation in national policy across Europe, with the UK most supportive of employee ownership. Regulations and tax frameworks are radically different across Europe. The UK’s EMI scheme is most favourable, better than what is available in the US, and France is also good. Other countries, including Germany, lag behind in our opinion.