Skip to main content

The Finance of Startups: For Dummies (Part 9 – Raising Funds through a Safe)


A friend looking to raise money recently told me a new form of raising money I hadn’t heard of before referred to as a Safe (simple agreement for future equity). A safe is a mechanism Paul Graham and his YC partner and lawyer Carolynn Levy created as an alternative to convertible notes – refer Finance of Startups: For Dummies (Part 4) for a short description of convertible notes.

Safes are meant to remove the clutter and complications of convertible notes in that they are not debts themselves. Instead, they are agreements for rights to the purchase of future stock – goal is to convert safeholders into stockholders.
  • Convertible notes can be highly regulated via their maturity dates, interest rates, etc. Safes, on the other hand, have no maturity date and as they are not debt, are not beholden to regulations regarding interest rates.
  • Safes remove the complexity of having to extend maturity dates as there are none (vs. convertible notes).Safes are converted to equity at specific events such as an equity financing round, liquidity event, or dissolution of the company (insolvency).
  • Like convertible notes, there are variations to the safes – those with a discount, valuation cap, or some combination of those two (with/ without) or none at all – instead, with an MFN (“Most Favored Nation”) provision.
  • Most Favored Nation provision (MFN) are used to amend a safe’s terms with a safe raised at a later date. This is common for safes with no discount or cap set. Note: safe can only be amended once, not multiple times.
Safes have been a big hit for YC-backed companies, and have been finding traction here in ATL for early stage startups looking to raise funds quickly without the battle over valuation. For more details on safes, check out this primer.

What are your questions about safes? If you were a startup or investor, what would your apprehensions about safes be? Versus convertible notes?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

You Make Time for What (and Who) Matters

I’ve always been a big proponent that you make time for the things and people that matter. Sounds simple, right? Then, why do so many not implement this better in their lives? Let me take a moment to recognize this more explicitly.
I touched on Laura Vanderkam’s TED Talk “How to Gain Control of Your Free Time” in last week’s post. In it, she shares a story of a woman who had a leak in her home. Coordinating with plumbers, and getting everything resolved, the woman estimated that it probably took seven hours of attention. That’s seven hours of “stuff” the woman hadn’t planned on doing. If you were to ask her (or most anyone) to find seven hours in the week before, she’d have told you, “heck, no, I don’t have seven hours. I’m busy!”
I was thinking of Laura’s talk in conjunction with Jacob Christensen’s How Will You Measure Your Life. Specifically, I’m aligning “making time” with Christensen’s Resources-Processes-Priorities framework. We make (process) time (resources) for the things th…

Vertical SaaS? Horizontal SaaS? It’s All News to Me

Not sure why, but I have only recently heard of a term called “Vertical SaaS”. Okay, there’s also “Horizontal SaaS”, too. Based on some light research, looks like vertical SaaS is also a growing trend and the number of companies fewer than horizontal SaaS providers.
Vertical SaaS borrows its moniker from the concept of vertical integration whereby there is more control over a supply chain from raw materials to point-of-sale. Here, vertical SaaS companies focus on a niche market (industry) offering a solution that enables more process control.
Horizontal SaaS providers get really good at a particular offering, and widen their market to reach scale. Their focus is on breadth of market, and thus, its sales and marketing strategies can require more resources.
Many vertical SaaS companies (such as Veeva Systems, Guidewire, Fleetmatics) are doing well usurping legacy systems of traditionally slow-tech-adoption industries. Here, vertical companies develop a best-of-breed product, and focu…

Leadership Take-Aways from Two of NCAA’s Most Successful Coaches

On my recent Delta flight, I read an interesting leadership article in Delta’s Sky magazine – the feature piece being an interview of two of the NCAA’s most successful coaches – Coach MikeKrzyzewski (Coach “K”) of Duke’s men’s basketball team and Coach Urban Meyer of Ohio State football with five and three national championships, respectively.
Given these two coaches’ storied careers, their leadership has incredible sustainability. Here are my take-aways from the article: Both coaches took leave of absences in their careers due to medical concerns. Their successes cultivated deeper motivations to win exacting significant physical, mental, social, and emotional tolls. After stepping away, however, each returned to coaching posts to continue winning ways, but implemented mechanisms and understanding to keep themselves in check. Take-away: To operate in peak form like their respective teams, leaders, too, need to ensure self-maintenance.The interviewer asked the coaches about social medi…