合伙的蛋糕该怎么分?
原文作者: Luke Johnson, 选自英国>
译者: 爱尔兰都柏林大学 赖小琪
Perhaps the most painful part of any business relationship is dividing up the cake between partners. This usually happens in the very early days of a new project, when there is a handful of you in a room, a band of adventurers with big dreams out to conquer the world. So what shareholding does everyone get?
可能所有的商业关系中, 最痛苦的事情莫过于合伙人之间的分蛋糕. 这通常会发生在创业初期, 几个合伙人, 或者可以说是怀有征服世界的雄心壮志的冒险家, 坐在一间房里商量究竟每个人应该持有企业多少股份.
The easiest split is to give everyone an equal stake. This has a certain simple logic. Usually, first-time start-up teams, and friends or relatives who go into business together, do it this way. In my experience this tends to lead to fewer arguments initially but it rarely reflects relative contributions – more naivety and a spirit of fairness. It does not really work with more than three founders – and it can certainly lead to bitterness later, if some feel they were cheated or that others have not pulled their weight.
最简单的方法是大家平分. 这个方法是有其基本逻辑的. 通常情况下, 初次创业的团队以及朋友或者亲人都会采取这种方式. 根据我的经验来看, 这种方式起初可以减少争论, 但是却不能反应出合伙人的各自贡献大小, 因此显得公平却有点天真. 但是, 这种方式并不适合于三个以上的合伙人, 而且如果后面有人觉得受骗或者觉得其他的股东没有尽责, 情况会变得相当糟糕.
More sophisticated entrepreneurs know that equity can mean a great deal. Typically, those who demand a bigger piece of the pie are the inventor/founders who put up more seed capital, and serial entrepreneurs who bring a track record. Often it makes sense to vest equity over time, rather than granting it all up front – this ensures that only those who last the distance enjoy the prize.
精明的企业家明白, 股权意义重大. 通常情况下, 要求分更大块蛋糕的人是为企业投入更多资本的投资人或者创始人以及那些有连续创业史的人. 一般来讲, 企业应当逐步地授予股权, 而不是一开始就把股权固定. 这可以保证让那些可以坚持到最后的人最终取得胜利.
Felix Dennis, the maverick publisher of The Week, is obsessed with avoiding dilution. An executive team working for him demanded he give them 20 per cent of the company – otherwise they would leave. He claims to have fired them on the spot. Of course, in the beginning, shares in any enterprise have just hope value, so it can seem petty to squabble too much. But never forget that equity has infinite upside – if you are to devote your life for years to a new venture, you want appropriate rewards if it succeeds thanks to your efforts.
《The Week》特立独行的出版人费利克斯•丹尼斯极力反对股权稀释. 他手下的一个管理团队曾要求他给予他们20%的股权, 否则就会离开他的公司. 他说他当场就把这些人解雇了. 当然, 起初, 任何公司的股票都会有其期望价值, 这时为股权的问题吵得不可开交, 便显得小肚鸡肠. 但是别忘了, 股权可是有无限升值的空间. 如果你决心付出毕生精力来经营你的新企业, 那么如果企业最终在你的努力下成功了, 你理所当然地想得到相应的回报.
There are absolutely no hard and fast rules about who should get what in an early-stage undertaking – it depends entirely on the circumstances. For pre-revenue businesses I balk at valuations much over a few hundred thousand pounds – even for spectacular ideas. Similarly, I think management’s free equity in a buy-out should never be more than 15 per cent combined, and usually materially less than that. But every investor will have their own benchmarks, and will treat each situation on its merits. Management who are so greedy that they judge investors exclusively on how much equity they receive often regret their choice.
创业初期没有硬性规定谁应该分多少蛋糕. 每个人分得蛋糕的大小取决于具体的情况. 对于尚未取得收入的企业, 如果其估值达到几十万英镑, 那么我就要三思了, 哪怕是再好的主意也一样. 同样, 在收购中, 管理层所得的免费股权合计不得超过15%, 通常应远远低于这个数字. 但是, 每个投资人都会有其基准, 也会对不同的情况区别对待. 那些贪得无厌, 以可取得的股权大小来判断投资者, 最后往往会后悔他们的抉择.
Human nature being what it is, the team at the top normally seizes all the sweet equity, barely leaving crumbs for those outside the boardroom. While this approach can deliver results, it also feels very selfish. No doubt less educated, more junior staff are mostly focused on short-term, cash bonuses. But concentrating all the gains in a tiny number of hands is not exactly motivating the broad workforce. The startling achievements in recent years of the John Lewis Partnership demonstrate the advantages of distributing participation widely.
公司的最高层往往会囊括全部的股权, 而几乎不会给董事会以外的人留下点滴好处, 这是人的天性. 这种做法虽然行之用效, 可是也让人感到非常自私. 毫无疑问, 受教育水平较低而且级别较低的员工通常会关注其短期的利益, 如现金奖金. 但是, 将所有的利益集中于少数人的手中, 不见得可以激励广大的员工. 约翰•路易斯合伙公司近些年取得的惊人成就, 足以证明了广泛分散股权的好处.
We live in an era where many executives want a job in a private equity-backed business because they think they will then be entitled to a juicy slice of ownership just for turning up to work – without stumping up any cash. They don’t always realise that life in a leveraged smaller company is very different to the comfy world of big corporates. Long hours, personal risk and real talent are necessary ingredients – and even then a bonanza is far from guaranteed. There is nowhere to hide if things go wrong.
我们生活的这个时代, 许多管理人员喜欢在私人资本企业工作, 是因为他们想能过这份工作在企业的股权上分一杯羹而不需要付出任何现金. 他们当中不是每个人都可以想到, 在一家举债经营的小企业工作与在一家资金充裕的大企业工作是截然不同的. 你必须可以承受长时期的工作, 敢于承担个人风险, 同时必须具备真才实干. 即便如此, 发财致富也不能得到保证. 如果工作出现差错, 那么你躲也躲不了.
Equity is about both value and control, but wise founders realise that outside stakeholders will compromise the latter: subscription agreements, loan documents and board structures do mean sharing power and decision-making. The way to avoid that is never to raise external capital; but few companies are capable of substantial growth without any outside funding.
股权意味着价值和控制权, 而精明的创始人知道, 外面的投资者会危及其控制权. 认购协议, 贷款协议, 以及董事会结构都意味着分权和共同决策. 要避免这种情况的唯一办法是杜绝筹外部融资. 但是很少公司可以不依靠外部融资而实现快速增长.
In negotiations over shareholdings, most partners think they deserve more than they actually get. If the bartering goes well, everyone is likely to emerge feeling a little disappointed – but able to live with the consequences. It is a fine line, juggling competing interests and keeping the show on the road – but it matters.
在关于股权的谈判中, 很多合伙人都会认为他们应该可以得到更多. 如果谈判顺利, 每个合伙人都会多多少少感到失望, 但是都可以勉强接受眼前的结果. 这就好比走钢丝, 既要平衡各方的利益, 又要保持工作的正常进行. 但是没办法, 股权划分还是要做的, 因为这对合伙人而方相当重要. |
