Successful founders prioritize cash upfront over potentially larger payouts from complex earnouts. Earnouts often underperform because founders lose control of the business's future performance, leading to dissatisfaction despite a higher on-paper valuation.
Related Insights
Serial acquirer Lifco improves post-acquisition performance by having sellers retain an ownership stake in their business. This goes beyond typical earn-outs, keeping the founder's expertise and incentives aligned with the parent company for long-term growth, rather than just hitting short-term targets.
Unlike in private equity, an early-stage venture investment is a bet on the founder. If an early advisor, IP holder, or previous investor holds significant control, it creates friction and hinders the CEO's ability to execute. QED's experience shows that these situations are untenable and should be avoided.
Founders should be wary of earn-out clauses. Acquirers can impose layers of pointless processes and overhead costs, tanking the profitability of a successful business and making it impossible for the founder to ever receive their earn-out payment.
Earnouts rewarding only the acquired team's siloed performance create a major integration roadblock. This structure incentivizes them to hoard resources and avoid collaboration, directly undermining the goal of creating a unified culture and destroying potential cross-functional value.
The founder's partnership allowed him to build a company without shouldering the initial financial risk. This "halfsies on risk" structure meant he never had true control or ownership, ultimately capping his upside and leaving him with nothing. To get the full reward, you must take the full risk.
Top-performing, founder-led businesses often don't want to sell control. A non-control investment strategy allows access to this exclusive deal flow, tapping into the "founder alpha" from high skin-in-the-game leaders who consistently outperform hired CEOs.
When a company like Synthesia gets a $3B offer, founder and VC incentives decouple. For a founder with 10% equity, the lifestyle difference between a $300M exit and a potential $1B future exit is minimal. For a VC, that same 3.3x growth can mean the difference between a decent and a great fund return, making them far more willing to gamble.
Beyond financials or deal terms, the single most cited frustration for founders post-acquisition is the loss of control over the company culture they built. This emotional attachment often outweighs other challenges, highlighting what founders truly value.
Exiting a cash-flowing business swaps a continuous income stream for a finite pot of money. This psychological shift can create deep financial insecurity as founders must now protect capital rather than generate it, even if they are objectively wealthy.
Granting a full co-founder 50% equity is a massive, often regrettable, early decision. A better model is to bring on a 'partner' with a smaller, vested equity stake (e.g., 10%). This provides accountability and complementary skills without sacrificing majority ownership and control.
