<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:rssFeedStyles="http://www.lerougeliet.com/ns/rssFeedStyles#"

	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Careful about equity and options in early stage businesses	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://berkonomics.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=3133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://berkonomics.com/?p=3133&#038;utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=careful-about-equity-and-options-in-early-stage-businesses</link>
	<description>Dave Berkus&#039; business insights</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:45:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Richard C Bruder		</title>
		<link>https://berkonomics.com/?p=3133&#038;cpage=1#comment-113886</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard C Bruder]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 2018 19:45:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://berkonomics.com/?p=3133#comment-113886</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Excellent post.  But I take issue with the suggestion that  founders should subject their shares to a buy sell if they leave the company &quot;so a passive owner cannot vote against measure other active owners endorse.&quot;  Agreed, founders shares should be subject to vesting, BUT a founder who goes most of the distance, but leaves after, say 2-3 years (when his or her shares are partially vested), shouldn&#039;t have to give up the bonanza at exit.  Its possible the founder created great value in those 2-3 years, which will not be recognized in any valuation method at that  point.  Your concern can be solved by converting the vested equity into non-voting equity.

Thanks for your wisdom and contributions to the field.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excellent post.  But I take issue with the suggestion that  founders should subject their shares to a buy sell if they leave the company &#8220;so a passive owner cannot vote against measure other active owners endorse.&#8221;  Agreed, founders shares should be subject to vesting, BUT a founder who goes most of the distance, but leaves after, say 2-3 years (when his or her shares are partially vested), shouldn&#8217;t have to give up the bonanza at exit.  Its possible the founder created great value in those 2-3 years, which will not be recognized in any valuation method at that  point.  Your concern can be solved by converting the vested equity into non-voting equity.</p>
<p>Thanks for your wisdom and contributions to the field.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Michael Flynn		</title>
		<link>https://berkonomics.com/?p=3133&#038;cpage=1#comment-111695</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Michael Flynn]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Oct 2017 16:31:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://berkonomics.com/?p=3133#comment-111695</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[yes, Invidiad&#039;s challenge was, in our naiveté - not fully understanding the impact on valuation, our corporate counsel guided us to creating a &quot;very generous&quot; option pool. you might blog about that and the consequences of a large option pool when you go to raise money.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yes, Invidiad&#8217;s challenge was, in our naiveté &#8211; not fully understanding the impact on valuation, our corporate counsel guided us to creating a &#8220;very generous&#8221; option pool. you might blog about that and the consequences of a large option pool when you go to raise money.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
