« JibJab’s Year-End Round-Up | Shared Nothing Architecture »

409A – The Valuation Process

  • Comments (-)

You may ask yourself “why are Brad and Jason so hung up on 409A – it just seems like yet another accounting thing my CFO is going to have to deal with.”  Wrong – it’s going to impact every employee in your company that gets stock options and is something every board member and the CEO needs to understand clearly. 

We’ve been entertained several times in the past two weeks as we’ve heard stories from board meetings where outside company counsel (from reputable law firms) have said such absurd things as “don’t worry about 409A – just grant all your options as ISOs – 409A doesn’t apply to ISOs.”  We’ll explain later why this is such a stupid statement, but for now we still have some work to do to set up the plot.

If you read our first post on 409A – Government Maximus Interruptus – you know by now that if a private company doesn’t accurately value its options, there is deep doo doo for the option holder and company. We’ll save the issues related to inaccurate valuation for another post (yeah – it’s kind of hard to implictly foreshadow with stimulating topics such as 409A – limiting our ability to impress the screen writers for 24, so we’ll just be explicit.)

So how do you correctly value options in the startup world? What does the IRS think? Under 409A, the IRS says you have three choices:

  1. Do it the old fashioned way (company board determines in good faith the FMV), but if an option holder gets audited and the IRS thinks the strike price is not truly FMV, then the option holder has burden of proof to show otherwise. If (when) you lose, have fun.
  2. Have a person, internal to the company who has “significant knowledge and experience or training in performing similar valuations,” create a written valuation report detailing the accurate pricing of the common stock. The quotes are directly from the IRS regulation and if you can explain the parameters of “significant knowledge and experience or training in performing similar valuations“ to us, please comment freely. The big issue is no one really knows who qualifies to do the valuation and what the report should look like. Many of the finance people at the startups that I know – even the extraordinary ones – probably don’t have “significant knowledge and experience or training in performing similar valuations” and – even if they did – why would they take the risk (remember – the finance dudes are supposed to be conservative.)

  3. Hire an independent, qualified, experienced valuation firm to create a written valuation report. Voila – the IRS and the accounting industry just helped create a new cottage industry! This is still tricky, as outside of the traditional valuation firms, it’s unclear who is qualified to perform the valuation. Furthermore, even if startups were willing and able to hire the legacy valuation companies (at $40k a pop), there aren’t enough valuation people in the world to get all of this work done in a timely matter.

The “good news” for options 2 and 3 is that if you follow the procedures correctly (whatever that means) the IRS has the burden of proof to show the valuation was “grossly unreasonable” which is an almost impossible standard to meet. So that essentially forces companies to choose one of the last two options.  However, in option 2, you have to prove that the internal person doing the valuation is “qualified”, but since the IRS hasn’t given guidelines for this, it’s a risky proposition. If the IRS decides the person isn’t qualified and/or they didn’t follow a “reasonable” methodology (again – unspecified), this makes the burden of proof in option 2 essentially sit on the company.  As a result, rational actors are going to default to option 3.


Therefore, as a result of 409A, we are now in a world where every private company that issues stock options has to get formal valuations from time to time. So what’s the big deal?



  • Cost. On the high end these valuation can cost $50,000 or so. Considering that the company must value options at every grant date, this can get incredibly expensive.  We have some suggestions for how to solve this issue economically, but that’s a later post (more foreshadowing).

  • Competency. Not wanting to be left out of the “entrepreneurial spirit of Silicon Valley,” smaller valuation companies are popping up all over the map to perform these valuations at substantial discounts to the established players. The problem is that few firms (and very few people) have a great deal of history or experience in valuing private companies, so the verdict is out whether these reports will be acceptable to the IRS should they come knocking. We are getting multiple calls a day from people wanting to perform valuations and most of them we wouldn’t trust to give us change back from a cash register. (As an aside, one of our companies recently completed a formal valuation and the valuation firm (presumably a reputable one) forgot to take into account liquidation preferences of the preferred stock when considering common stock payouts on mergers.  Once they did this, it reduced their initial valuation by 75%.  Oops.)

  • History. The “grandfather clause” for 409A only applies to options that have vested by 12/31/04.  As a result, any option that is still unvested (or granted) after 12/31/04 has to be “fixed” (yes – another post).  Therefore, if you are a typical private company that has four year vesting on stock options, you’ve got to fix option grants that go back as far as 2001.  Groovy.

  • Uncertainty. The big question that everyone is grappling with is what will the results be from these formal valuations? Will they be 10 times higher? Could they even be lower? No one really know the real impact of the valuations, because no one really knows how these firms will value the companies. We’ve seen a couple reports so far and in one case the price was actually lower than the company was granting at, while the other company was significantly higher. Uncertainly, however breeds nervous people.

So bottom line, startups will have to get formal valuations done on their common stock. It’s not pretty, but it’s probably here to stay. We’ve been working on a standard process for our portfolio companies and are pretty close to having one that we recommend.  Remember – we are just suggesting ideas, not providing legal advice, check with your lawyer, even if they are clueless about this stuff and – if they are – we’re happy to recommend some that we think have a clue.)

December 18th, 2005     Categories: 409A    
  • zalman

    An early stage company might be able to achieve its compensation goals with restricted stock (ie subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, vesting). Restricted stock is not subject to 409A (although valuation is still an issue).

  • Jason

    Restricted stock is not subject to 409A if you meet several hurdles. Otherwise, it falls into the same traps. The service hasn’t made it clear exactly how to deal with the hurdles and we’ll comment on this in a later blog. Also, you correctly point out the other problems with restricted stock. Stay tuned and thanks for the input.

  • Kevin McPherson

    Brad, What do you think of this idea? I set up a side business to do valuations. Price them at $20K for a first time and $10K for each follow-on. Promise turnaround within 2-3 weeks. My day job is CFO with a VC firm so I’m familiar with cap table, preferences, Black-Sholes and DCF. CPA and MBA for good measure. All work done by me, no staff. Obviously, I wouldn’t do our portfolio companies. Think it would fly? Kevin (nice blog, BTW picked up the link from The May Report)

  • http://www.intangible-value.com Mark

    Excellent posts – very insightful and more refreshing to read than the legal words — squint my way through that …. stuff & would really rather poke needles into my pupils. Look forward to additional posts.

    One service that our firm provides is annual impairment testing for accounting compliance purposes — goodwill testing resulting from a significant US GAAP change in 2001. Similar evolution of independent valuation requirements and recurring services as we see with 409a. I can recall the same dread and fear from all of those public companies carrying material goodwill balances (thousands in 2001): “it is a nightmare”, “the costs will be exorbitant”, “who will complete all of the work”…and on and on. Four.5 years – and the creation of only a “minor” cottage industry later – we find most CFOs dealt (and deal) with SFAS-142 without much lingering complaint – of course the trade-off to our fee is the amortization savings (assuming no impairment). There doesn’t appear to be a similar trade off here with 409a??? (taxes and penalties saved is certainly a tag line from the BD guy pitching his firm�s appraisal assistance…yes?).

    But, I can self-servingly suggest that independence in valuation (vs. the very dependent Board…err, we are being forthright here aren�t we!) will ultimately best serve the investor, perhaps not without legitimate bitching and moaning.

    And, I don’t personally know of any fellow appraisers who are rolling in 409a dough � none of us is laughing to the bank: most are weary from the complaining, ever-declining fees and the fly-by-night appraiser quacks posing as experts. We turn down/refer more of this work than we accept.

    Accept it gracefully, pay for it to be done correctly and get on with growing the start-up!

    MSK

  • http://www.venturereturns.com Jeron Paul

    Brad, this is great advice. I showed this blog to the folks at Venture Returns–they specialize in 409a valuations for startups and growth companies–and they now link directly to this article!

  • http://www.growthroute.com Greg Boutin

    Does 409A affect employee's fund too? Those are funds allocating a fixed % of the company to all employees (usually non-executive). A formula based on level and time with the company decides how it is split. The difference with stock options is that nothing is allocated before the actual occurrence of a monetization round.

    A client of mine is looking for a way to set up an incentive plans for employees and consultants, but stock options look vastly overkill. They have never raised an external round yet so the idea of putting a value on their business sounds ridiculous. An employee fund seemed like the logical solution, I have seen it successfully set up elsewhere, but now with 409A I wonder. I googled this but could find nothing… so all insight would be vastly appreciated.

    • http://www.feld.com Brad Feld

      I'm not sure what legal structure you are actually referring to when you say “employee's fund.” Can you be more specific?

  • http://www.growthroute.com Greg Boutin

    Does 409A affect employee's fund too? Those are funds allocating a fixed % of the company to all employees (usually non-executive). A formula based on level and time with the company decides how it is split. The difference with stock options is that nothing is allocated before the actual occurrence of a monetization round.

    A client of mine is looking for a way to set up an incentive plans for employees and consultants, but stock options look vastly overkill. They have never raised an external round yet so the idea of putting a value on their business sounds ridiculous. An employee fund seemed like the logical solution, I have seen it successfully set up elsewhere, but now with 409A I wonder. I googled this but could find nothing… so all insight would be vastly appreciated.

    • http://www.feld.com Brad Feld

      I'm not sure what legal structure you are actually referring to when you say \”employee's fund.\” Can you be more specific?

      • http://www.growthroute.com Greg Boutin

        Hi Brad,

        It was called “Employee Stock Ownership Trust” at the startup I was with and a search on WP tells me they call it “employee stock ownership plans” (ESOPs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_ownership

        The same WP entry says:
        “ESOPs in the U.S. are not subject to the accounting rules for stock option plans and other equity instruments. ESOPs in the U.S. are a specific kind of plan set up by U.S. law.”

        Greg

        • David Thomas

          An employee stock ownership plan in the United States is a special kind of tax-qualified retirement plan that is designed to primarily invest in the securities of the company that sponsors the plan. The rules are extremely technical and complicated in 99% of cases will likely not make sense to implement for a startup company.

          The other potential alternative for what you describe is a carveout plan that allocates a portion of sales proceeds among employees on the occurrence of a sale. If employees must be employed on the date that the proceeds are distributed, these arrangements can be set up in a moderately non-complex manner, but when concepts like vesting and payment for people who have terminated employment are introduced then it gets to be more expensive and complicated. Carveout plans are often implemented in companies that have experienced some financial difficulty, making the stock options less valuable to employees (in many cases because the liquidation preferences of preferred stock holders will likely result in the common stock being worthless). The 409A valuation rules do not affect a carveout plan, but there are other (more complicated) 409A rules that do affect the structure.

          • http://www.growthroute.com Greg Boutin

            I saw the employee stock ownership plan implemented in Canada (where I reside), where rules in this field tend not to differ massively from the U.S. (although I can't say specifically for this case.) It was extremely straightforward, and it was done in stock not sales proceeds (there were no sales, it was a pre-launch web startup).
            We were told this was done regularly in the U.S., and the company was well-funded (and still is today). The formula divided the fund among current employees only at the time of the monetization event, based on time with the company and position level.

      • growthroute

        Hi Brad & others,

        I am still interested in any information you might share on that topic, or people (e.g. start-up lawyer) you could refer me to who might be knowledgeable on the topic of employee funds (for startups especially, if we can confirm it exists in the U.S.!).

        Greg

        • http://www.feld.com Brad Feld

          I don't really know what \”employee funds\” are in this context so I'm afraid I can't help.

  • http://www.growthroute.com Greg Boutin

    Hi Brad,

    It was called "Employee Stock Ownership Trust" at the startup I was with and a search on WP tells me they call it "employee stock ownership plans" (ESOPs) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_ownership

    The same WP entry says:
    "ESOPs in the U.S. are not subject to the accounting rules for stock option plans and other equity instruments. ESOPs in the U.S. are a specific kind of plan set up by U.S. law."

    Greg

    • David Thomas

      An employee stock ownership plan in the United States is a special kind of tax-qualified retirement plan that is designed to primarily invest in the securities of the company that sponsors the plan. The rules are extremely technical and complicated in 99% of cases will likely not make sense to implement for a startup company.

      The other potential alternative for what you describe is a carveout plan that allocates a portion of sales proceeds among employees on the occurrence of a sale. If employees must be employed on the date that the proceeds are distributed, these arrangements can be set up in a moderately non-complex manner, but when concepts like vesting and payment for people who have terminated employment are introduced then it gets to be more expensive and complicated. Carveout plans are often implemented in companies that have experienced some financial difficulty, making the stock options less valuable to employees (in many cases because the liquidation preferences of preferred stock holders will likely result in the common stock being worthless). The 409A valuation rules do not affect a carveout plan, but there are other (more complicated) 409A rules that do affect the structure.

      • http://www.growthroute.com Greg Boutin

        I saw the employee stock ownership plan implemented in Canada (where I reside), where rules in this field tend not to differ massively from the U.S. (although I can't say specifically for this case.) It was extremely straightforward, and it was done in stock not sales proceeds (there were no sales, it was a pre-launch web startup).
        We were told this was done regularly in the U.S., and the company was well-funded (and still is today). The formula divided the fund among current employees only at the time of the monetization event, based on time with the company and position level.

  • growthroute

    Hi Brad & others,

    I am still interested in any information you might share on that topic, or people (e.g. start-up lawyer) you could refer me to who might be knowledgeable on the topic of employee funds (for startups especially, if we can confirm it exists in the U.S.!).

    Greg

    • http://www.feld.com Brad Feld

      I don't really know what “employee funds” are in this context so I'm afraid I can't help.

  • Pingback: 409A Valuations | Venture Chronicles

  • Pingback: 409A Valuations

  • Pingback: Will Facebook have an IPO bounce? Has 409A changed the game? | Ramon B. Nuez Jr.

  • Pingback: Startup & Private Valuations: How do you calculate the valuation in a startup with no need for funds? - Quora