Technology Start-ups Compensation Study Ernst & Young 2008


Published on

Benchmark salaries, % ownership by funding round, c-level responsibility and founders position

Published in: Economy & Finance, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Technology Start-ups Compensation Study Ernst & Young 2008

  1. 1. 2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information Technology2008w w w . c o m p s t u d y . c o mA Data in this report produced in collaboration with Professor Noam Wasserman of Harvard Business School
  2. 2. AAA
  3. 3. ATABLEOFCONTENTS1Letter to the Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Summary of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Founders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10InterviewClinton W. Bybee, Co-founder and Managing Director –ARCH Venture Partners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12Carlos A. Riva, President & CEO – Verenium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182008 Compensation and EntrepreneurshipReport in Information TechnologyChief Executive Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24President/Chief Operating Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Chief Financial Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32Chief Technology Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36Head of Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40Head of Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Head of Marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48Head of Business Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52Head of Human Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56Head of Professional Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60Board of Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64About the Sponsors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .67Data in this report produced in collaboration withProfessor Noam Wasserman of Harvard Business School.For more information on his work, please
  4. 4. AAA
  5. 5. ALETTERTO THEINDUSTRY3We are pleased to present the 2008 edition of our Compensation andEntrepreneurship Report in Technology. This Report, our ninth annual version,includes summaries and analysis of compensation data collected from more than340 private companies located throughout the country in the following six industrysegments: Software; Communications; Hardware, Semiconductors and Electronics;Services, Consulting and Integration; Community, Content and InformationProviders; and a new category in 2008, Clean Technology. The survey data wascollected between April and June of 2008.The Report also includes interviews with Carlos Riva, a serial entrepreneur, whodescribes his experience as a founder and leader of multiple organizations, and ClintBybee, a prominent venture capitalist in the Advanced Materials sector.Our continuing inspiration for this survey is to respond to our clients’ requests forbetter access to reliable, comparable compensation data to assist them in the criticaldecisions involved in attracting, motivating and retaining key executives at privatecompanies. Over the years we have been able to present the correlation betweenexecutive compensation and a number of variables, including financing stage,company size both in terms of revenue and headcount, founder/non-founder status,industry segment, and geography. We have also been able to provide a number ofanalytics on how an organization evolves with additional financing, Boards of Directorscompensation and make-up, and a granular view at company equity plans.Our survey has evolved over the years based on input received directly from theindustry, and our hope is to continuously improve our data so that we can best servethe needs of our clients in the Technology industry. In that regard, we encouragereaders of this publication to submit comments and suggestions to help us mostefficiently and accurately present the compensation dynamics of the market.Suggestions and comments should be directed to Mike DiPierro of J. Robert Scott(, we would like to express our gratitude to Associate Professor NoamWasserman of the Harvard Business School who, in addition to utilizing the data forhis own research (more at, continues tocontribute greatly to our publication.
  6. 6. Financing RoundsPre-money and 1 2 3 4 5 or moreInstitutional Round rounds78 78885543Founder/Non-Demographics of Respondent Population• This survey of executive compensation in privately heldTechnology companies was conducted between April andJune of 2008. The questionnaire resulted in 342 completeresponses with data from over 1,600 executives in a widecross section of industry sectors, geographies and stages ofdevelopment.• The 2008 report provides aggregated results of the data aswell as a deeper examination of the population by a numberof perspectives, including: financing stage, founder status,geography, headcount and company revenue.Financing Rounds• Companies are divided between those that have received oneor fewer financing rounds, two or three rounds of financing,and those that have raised four or more rounds. As in previ-ous year’s editions the detailed breakdown by financing roundshows a concentration of respondent companies at the earlystages of development, though there was a slight uptick in thepercentage of organizations having raised three rounds.Founder Status• 31% of the executive population this year were founders oftheir company, up slightly from 28% of the population in our2007 edition.• CTOs and CEOs were the most frequent founders of theircompanies, comprised of 58% and 56% founders respectively.In total number, the CEO is the most frequent founder.Headcount by Number of Full Time Employees(FTEs)• Companies with 20 or fewer FTEs again make up moreapproximately one-third of the population. This year’s surveyincluded an increased number of mid-sized companies in the41-75 FTE range, 25% of respondents, up from 20% in 2007.4 www.compstudy.comBSUMMARYOFRESULTSCEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofEngineeringHeadofTechnology/CTO191137496420190129102361531-20 21-40 41-75 76+Headcount by Number of Full-Time Employees (FTEs)811158660KEY: 20082007
  7. 7. Business Segment2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyCalifornia New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland Atlantic CaliforniaNew EnglandMid-AtlanticMidwestWestSouth64111471649Geography• California and New England dominate the population of com-panies, closely mirroring venture capital funding trends andsimilar to our previous editions.Business Segment• Software companies again were the most common segmentcomprising just under half of the respondents. ComputerHardware, Semiconductor, Electronics companies were nextlargest with 16% of the response. A CleanTech category wasadded in 2008 and drew 6% of the responding population.Company Revenue• Survey respondents continue to lean heavily toward earlystage revenue companies with 62% of participating companiesgenerating less than $5 million, compared to 64% last year.ASUMMARYOFRESULTS5HeadofHumanResourcesHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofSalesHeadofProfessionalServices23184251232985353952SoftwareCommunicationsComputer Hardware/Semiconductors/ElectronicsContent/Information ProviderIT Services/Consulting/Systems IntegrationCleanTechGeographyKEY:Non-FounderFounder49%16%7%6%12%10%48Company RevenuePre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+Revenue74140523739Founder StatusFounderNon-Founder
  8. 8. HeadofHumanResourcesHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofSalesHeadofProfessionalServices29%23%24%14%40%21%29%19%59%44%Cash Compensation – 2007 and 2008This data compares 2008 compensation date withcompensation data for 2007 non-founding executives.2007 figures are represented with both actual bonusreceived and total unachieved target bonus for the year.2008 bonus figures indicate at-plan target amounts.• Average base salary across all positions increased overall ata steady 4.7% rate from 2007 to 2008, repeating closely therise in 2006-2007 base salary from last year’s edition, 4.6%.• The Head of Human Resources and CFO saw the largest per-centage increases in base salary, 7.2% and 5.2%,respectively, year over year.• Within prior year bonus figures, we have distinguishedbetween actual received and target amounts. Breaking thebonus apart in this way demonstrates that on average execu-tives earned approximately two-thirds of their target incentivecompensation in 2007, nearly identical to the figure from 2006.• Overall bonus targets as a percentage of base salary did notchange materially from 2007 to 2008. There was a slightdecrease in target bonus for the Head of Sales, droppingfrom 63% of base salary in 2007 to 59% in 2008.6 www.compstudy.comBSUMMARYOFRESULTSExecutives Eligible forBonus as a Percentage of Base Salary – 2007 and 200843%30%13%4%10% 14%9%19%11%20%10%9%CEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofEngineeringHeadofTechnology/CTO32%24%15%34%18%29%18%31%83%74%CEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofEngineeringHeadofTechnology/CTO84% 79%58%84%68%84%68%70%KEY:200720072008 Target BonusBase SalaryUnachieved Target BonusBase SalaryActual Bonus Received2007 2008Total Cash Compensation226 2366929102178 183755 58157 1652810 49162 17057156 1632414302339CEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofEngineeringHeadofTechnology/CTO
  9. 9. 2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyASUMMARYOFRESULTS7HeadofHumanResourcesHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofSalesHeadofProfessionalServices90%73%85%77%82%70%91%68%90%73%HeadofSales307033313313662848160 16798160 166 157 165113148 15645HeadofHumanResourcesHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofProfessionalServices3018Bonus – 2007 and 2008HeadofHumanResourcesHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofSalesHeadofProfessionalServicesOtherReferred by InvestorReferred by Other ExecutiveReferred by CEOWhere Companies Locate Talent25%29%23%CEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofEngineeringHeadofTechnology/CTO– 2007 and 2008105151123%19%17%26%38%13%12%12%63%20%32%12%36%20%13%13%53%22%15%19%45%27%15%16%42%24%19%15%42%22%16%12%51%21%14%14%50%0-1 2-6 6-10 10+Company Age (Years)1432711458
  10. 10. Equity/Option Grants at Time of Hire• At the average, the non-founding CEO receives a 5.40% grantto join the company, as expected, the highest of the positionssurveyed.• Incentive Stock Options continue to be the most commonform of equity granted in the companies surveyed, accountingfor 47% of the aggregate equity given. 58% of respondentcompanies rely on stock options as the sole equity vehicle.This figure is down significantly, however, from our 2007report where 82% of companies utilized options.Equity Holdings• Outside the CEO and President/COO, the non-founder Headof Technology holds the next highest average equity percent-age at 1.53%.• The combined 10 positions surveyed in this report hold onaverage 15.68% of the company, down from 17.13% in our2007 edition.Severance Packages• 64% of non-founder CEOs have a severance package, downslightly from 67% in our previous survey. Between approxi-mately one-quarter to one-third of the remainingmanagement team has a severance package.• The average CEO severance package is 7.4 months. The CEO,President/COO and CFO each have a median severance of 6months, while the rest of the non-founding positions sur-veyed have a median severance of 3 months.8 www.compstudy.comBSUMMARYOFRESULTS6.007.40 7.196.00 6.005.443.004.683.004.85Severance Packages (MedianKEY: AverageMedianEquity/Option Grants at TimeCEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofEngineeringHeadofTechnology/CTO5.005.401.001.321.00 1.191.00 HoldingsCEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofEngineeringHeadofTechnology/CTOCEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofEngineeringHeadofTechnology/CTO5.105.761.001.411.001.530.90 0.941.502.88
  11. 11. 2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyASUMMARYOFRESULTS9Executives with Severance Package64%41%34%27% 25%33%30%26%19% 17%3.004.333.003.923.004.823.003.903.00 2.89CEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofTechnology/CTOHeadofSalesHeadofHumanResourcesHeadofEngineeringHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofProfessionalServicesHeadofHumanResourcesHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofSalesHeadofProfessionalServices0.400.600.06 0.911.001.20HeadofHumanResourcesHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofSalesHeadofProfessionalServices0.300.750.10 0.271.00 1.050.90 0.921.001.21Equity Vehicles UsedOnly Incentive Stock OptionsOnly Non-Qualified Stock OptionsOnly Restricted StockOnly Common StockBoth OptionsBoth StockNoneStock and Options47%8%7%13%3%1%14%7%Only Incentive Stock OptionsOnly Non-Qualified Stock OptionsOnly Restricted StockOnly Common StockBoth OptionsNoneStock and Options64%14%4%4%4%8%4%20082007and Average in # of months)of Hire Median Vs. Average (%)Median Vs. Average (%)HeadofHumanResourcesHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofSalesHeadofProfessionalServices
  12. 12. Organizational Structure by Financing Round• 96% of companies surveyed from the earliest stage of financ-ing reported a CEO, with 79% of those CEOs being foundersof their companies. This is a slight increase from last year’sedition where 92% of companies in the earliest stage offinancing were led by a CEO and two-thirds were founders.• For just 33% of those companies in the latest financingstages, the founding CEO remains in control.• The CFO is the most frequent addition as a company movesfrom one or fewer rounds raised to two to three rounds. Just30% of companies at the earliest stage have a CFO, jumpingto 66% at companies with 2-3 rounds raised.Equity by Financing Round• In companies having raised one or fewer rounds the averagefounding CEO holds nearly one-third of the company’s fully-diluted equity. After 2 rounds of financing, this reduces to anaverage of approximately 18%.• Founding CTOs see a dramatic effect on equity holding asfinancing rounds increase, decreasing from 17.1% in compa-nies with one or fewer rounds raised to 7.49% in those with2-3 rounds of financing.10 www.compstudy.comBFOUNDERSEquity HoldingsOrganizational Structure by FinancingCEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofEngineeringHeadofTechnology/CTO17.0022.054.606.226.008.912.003.249.0015.43Cash Compensa190 19795 88180 19186108154 1593856 5036272420 3142156 16552 49154 161CEOPresident/COOCFOHeadofEngineeringHeadofTechnology/CTO79%17%58%37%33%63%26%15%11%14%10%29%26%8%58%74%38%26%42%27%31%38%6%4% 4%32%16%45%5%55%1orfewer2-34ormore1orfewer2-34ormore1orfewer2-34ormore1orfewer2-34ormore1orfewer2-34ormoreCEO President/COOCFO Head ofTechnology/CTOHead ofEngineeringKEY:200720072008 Target BonusBase SalaryTarget Bonus Not ReceivedBase SalaryActual Bonus Received2007 2008
  13. 13. 2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyA FOUNDERS11KEY: AverageMedianKEY:Non-FounderFounderHeadofHumanResourcesHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofSalesHeadofProfessionalServices2.207.230.306.204.006.312.507.193.007.45438354 64104350166 17077150 159 155 166107 112148 16060HeadofHumanResourcesHeadofMarketingHeadofBusinessDevelopmentHeadofSalesHeadofProfessionalServicesFounder CEO – Equity by Financing Round≤14+2-318.60 30.00 40.0031.517.10 13.03 22.0018.135.40 10.00 16.0015.63Founder President/COO – Equity by Financing Round≤14+2-39.00 18.00 33.0024.182.50 6.00 22.0011.213.00 4.55 8.005.94Founder Head of Technology/CTO – Equity by Financing Round≤14+2-38.25 15.00 22.3217.102.00 5.00 10.007.492.00 3.00 6.004.0035%49%78%2%15%10%38% 49%4%15%7%23%14%35%10%1%17%1%16%1% 4%8% 15%3%21%1%1orfewer2-34ormore1orfewer2-34ormore1orfewer2-34ormore1orfewer2-34ormore1orfewer2-34ormoreHead ofSalesHead ofMarketingHead ofBusinessDevelopmentHead ofHumanResourcesHead ofProfessionalServices– FoundersRound (Founder and Non-Founder)tion – Founders1247114325th Median 75thpercentile percentileMeanKEY:4% 5%9% 8%
  14. 14. CLINTON W. BYBEECo-founder and Managing DirectorARCH VENTURE PARTNERSClinton Bybee is a co-founder and Managing Director of ARCHVenture Partners. Mr. Bybee concentrates primarily on advancedmaterials, electronics, semiconductors, photonics, and infrastruc-ture businesses.Mr. Bybee has helped organize and finance numerous companiesincluding MicroOptical Devices (acquired by EMCORE), CambriosTechnologies, Aveso, Innovalight, Intelligent Reasoning Systems(acquired by Photon Dynamics), Semprius, Nanosys, and XteraCommunications.He is a board member of Impinj, Innovalight, CambriosTechnologies, Xtera Communications, Nitronex and Aveso. Mr.Bybee is an organizing member of the Texas Venture CapitalAssociation and currently serves as its first President.Previously, Mr. Bybee worked with ARCH DevelopmentCorporation. He also managed a venture investment fund for theState of Illinois and was a production engineer with AmocoCorporation. Mr. Bybee holds an M.B.A. from the University ofChicago and a B.S. in Engineering from Texas A&M University.Aaron: How about starting with you walking me through yourlife before venture capital. What was your career before yougot into the venture industry?Clint: I was an engineer. I studied engineering at Texas A&Mand went to work as a production engineer with Amoco, whichis now part of BP. I worked in the Permian Basin. Those weretough times in the oil business — rapidly declining oil prices,lay-offs, tough economic times. The good news for me was thatwith all the lay-offs, I suddenly found myself with a hugeamount of responsibility. Even when you cut half of the engi-neers, you still have lots of operating challenges, and I receivedan exponential increase in responsibility. I left Amoco aboutthree and a half years later. The lay-offs were regular and I hadan opportunity to take a voluntary severance package that Iplanned so I could head off for business school while still get-ting paid.Aaron: Not a bad deal.Clint: Not at all! I went to the University of Chicago and when Iarrived, there was a new group that had been formed about ayear earlier called ARCH Development Corporation. It wasformed by the Trustees of the University with a mission to com-mercialize technologies emanating from the University ofChicago and the Argonne National Laboratory, which theUniversity operates for the Department of Energy.Aaron: How was that different from a technology transferoffice?Clint: It was set up differently. It was set up as a private compa-ny. ARCH Development Corp. was a not-for-profit, 501(c)3company whose sole member was the University of Chicago.The trustees set it up that way because they wanted to be ableto put the proper incentives in place and knew under a tradi-tional academic structure it would be difficult to hire a realbusiness person who could have some skin in the game. Thatwas the innovative piece of ARCH Development Corp. It was setup with a high level mission to commercialize technology andincluded an incentive to start companies as the preferredmeans of commercialization.12 www.compstudy.comBINTERVIEWS
  15. 15. Aaron: So it was hard to find funding?Clint: Impossible. There was interest from some West Coastfirms but Chicago was a long way away, it’s cold in the winter,and that didn’t appeal to them. We concluded that if we weregoing to turn the corner on this experiment, we had to havesome seed investment capability, so we set out to raise a fund.It took over a year to raise the first fund, which was $9 milliondollars, in 1989. It’s undoubtedly the hardest money that ARCHever raised.Aaron: Was this still under the auspices of ARCH DevelopmentCorp.?Clint: Yes. ARCH Development Corp., a 501(c)3 not-for-profit,was the general partner of ARCH Fund I. It was an odd struc-ture. Steve Lazarus really raised the first fund - he broughtimmense credibility from his executive roles at Baxter and asDeputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce prior to that. We did12 companies with that first fund.Aaron: Wow. Twelve companies off of $9 million dollars?Clint: We learned to syndicate. We made mistakes and learnedsome important lessons about funding to milestones. We ulti-mately wrote four of those first companies off, took four public,and four were acquired.Aaron: What was your industry focus?Clint: It was essentially the mirror image of the focus at theUniversity of Chicago and Argonne National Laboratory, whichis life sciences, physical sciences, and information sciences,and areas where those disciplines converge.Aaron: When did you make the break from the 501(c)3?Clint: That was after fund one, which was in the 1992 timeframe. We had fully invested in fund one by 1992 and by thistime we found ourselves in the venture capital business. Wesaw enough opportunity to organize a second fund, and as weset out to raise a new fund the Trustees of the Universityencouraged us to spin out. So we formed ARCH VenturePartners with the University’s blessing as a separate, privategroup, and we began to spread out geographically. It began withthe Vice Provost of Columbia University inviting us to put anoffice there. He had followed our work at Chicago. This sparkedthe idea to pursue a national strategy.13Aaron: Who did the University recruit to build the business?Clint: They brought in Steve Lazarus who had been a seniorexecutive at Baxter Laboratories. He was one of the key peopleinvolved in the American Hospital Supply-Baxter combination.Following the merger, Steve chose to retire from Baxter, andwas recruited to be the initial CEO of ARCH Development Corp.Aaron: How did you get involved with ARCH DevelopmemtCorp. as a student?Clint: One of the things Steve wanted to do was to teach. So heconvinced the University to put ARCH Development Corp. in thebusiness school and the University gave Steve an appointmentas an Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Business.When I got on the ground there in 1988 to attend businessschool, Bob Nelsen and Keith Crandell, who are now my part-ners, were working at ARCH Development Corp. as volunteers.I joined them as a volunteer, seeing this as a great way to takemy interest in science and technology and apply it to business. Igot started by spending around 20 hours a week at ArgonneNational Lab, which is about 45 minutes from the University.Aaron: So the idea was to find technology that could be spunout of Argonne into businesses?Clint: Exactly.Aaron: Where did the funding come from?Clint: Well, that led to the next problem. ARCH DevelopmentCorp. was not set up to be a venture capital firm; we were setup to start companies. So in many cases we were running thecompanies ourselves until we could get enough momentumwhere we could recruit professional managers. By the late ‘80swe had some companies going that needed real funding. Therewere some good venture funds in Chicago at the time, but whenwe would show up to talk to them about our companies, theidea of backing a raw startup with an incomplete or non-exis-tent management team and technology that was not fullydeveloped yet into a product was essentially a foreign notion tothose guys.CLINTON BYBEE, CO-FOUNDER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARCH VENTURE PARTNERS2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information Technology
  16. 16. AARON D. LAPATManaging DirectorJ. ROBERT SCOTTAaron has been with J. Robert Scott since 1993 and built the firm’shigh tech practice. He leads senior level search assignments acrossa range of industry segments, including Software, Communications,Semiconductors/ Microelectronics, Specialty Materials andCleanTech. His practice emphasizes recruiting CEOs and functionalleaders for growth-oriented and venture-backed companies.Additionally, Aaron oversees the creation of the annualCompensation and Entrepreneurship Report in Information Technologyat to joining J. Robert Scott, Aaron spent four years with aretainer-based executive search firm that serviced the high tech-nology industry.Aaron holds a B.A. in Anthropology as well as an M.B.A. fromBoston University. He serves on the Board of Advisors of Stax, Inc.,a privately-held consulting and market research firm. Aaron andhis wife Lauren have two children, Sophie and Sammy. In his sparetime, Aaron plays tennis, runs and listens to music. On the offdays, he can be found stoking the embers of his VW-sized TexasBBQ, mixing up a homemade hot sauce, or trying to create theperfect play-list from his ever-expanding record (mp3) collection.Aaron: How did you execute this? Did you send a partner toNew York?Clint: We had someone who joined us for a while in New York,but we learned a lesson that other venture funds have learned.It’s hard to weld somebody on in a remote geography. It did notultimately work out effectively. Instead we tried the otherapproach, which was to move people from the core out toremote geographies. Bob Nelsen moved to Seattle; he is fromthat part of the country and was interested in being out west.We saw an opportunity to have a presence near the Universityof Washington and that has been very productive for us. Since Iwas the only guy in the group who had been to the southwest-ern part of the United States, I went to Albuquerque in 1994.Aaron: Talk about finding a place off the beaten trail to doventure investing.Clint: I was the only venture capitalist in the whole state.Actually, I think I was the only venture capitalist most peoplehad ever heard of. Within a year after I got on the ground wehelped start a company out of Sandia National Laboratoriescalled MicroOptical Devices. I spent almost a year workingnearly full time with the two scientific founders to get it started.It turned out to be a nice success as it was acquired by a publiccompany called Emcore. The acquisition was the catalyst forEmcore’s transition out of equipment and into devices and com-ponents. It is now the center of gravity of Emcore.Aaron: When did you come to Texas?Clint: I came here in 2000. We continued to get bigger. Our sec-ond fund was $31 million, our next fund was $107 million andthe one after that was $180 million. As we scaled, it becameless viable for Partners like me to spend nine months workingon one company full time. At that time, Albuquerque was a dif-ficult place to scale an operation. I knew Austin well and had acouple of companies here. So we concluded it was either Austinor California, and our collective judgment was that Californiawas ripe with a lot of smart venture capitalists, so we came toAustin instead.14 www.compstudy.comBINTERVIEWS
  17. 17. Aaron: So, you have invested in the renewable technologiessector as an offshoot of your focus in advanced materials?Clint: Right. For example, we co-founded a company calledInnovalight in 2003 around fundamental innovations in siliconnanoparticles developed at the University of Texas. The compa-ny is now based in Sunnyvale and is a very promising thin filmsolar company using its silicon nanoparticles in an ink as a keyingredient. Another example is a company called NanophaseTechnologies, which my partner Keith Crandell founded back in1990, long before nanotech was cool. Nanophase Technologieswas formed to exploit the commercial applications of nanoma-terials developed at Argonne National Lab. Cleantech getslumped into our physical sciences activity because the innova-tions tend to be physical sciences related (materials,chemicals, electrochemical, etc.). We also find that where phys-ical sciences and life sciences converge is a fertile territory fornew companies. Sapphire Energy is a portfolio company that ismaking gasoline from algae, and represents a convergence ofphysical science and biological sciences.Aaron: Let’s move the discussion toward executive leadershipin your portfolio companies. What makes a great CEO for anemerging business?Clint: I don’t know that there is one answer. Two very goodmodels that work are (1) “done it before” or (2) you “know theindustry cold.”Aaron: If forced to choose between entrepreneurialathleticism and deep domain expertise, which do you take?Clint: I have seen examples of both, and “done it before” entre-preneurial athleticism is probably going to outcompete deepdomain expertise nearly every time. For example, we recruiteda CEO to a company here in Austin, which he built and sold to apublic company and then we recruited him into a telecom com-pany, yet he had no telecom experience at all. He has done agreat job because he’s a hard charging entrepreneurial operat-ing guy and was able to compliment himself on the telecomside with team members from the industry. The best CEOs arethe ones that know what they’re good at and what they’re notand work hard to get A+ people around them to fill in the gaps.15Aaron: What is it in the culture of the firm and yourinvestment philosophy that has kept the partnership anenduring one?Clint: That’s a great question because as you know, we nowoperate with offices in Chicago, Austin, Seattle, and SanFrancisco, which presents challenges. I think it works well for acouple of reasons. The first is that Bob, Keith, Steve, and I haveworked together from the beginning and we have seen thegood, the bad, and the ugly together, which helps to build apretty close bond.Aaron: How many partners are there now?Clint: Five. There are the original three, as Steve is now anemeritus partner, plus two others. Steve Gillis joined us aboutthree years ago as a Venture Partner and he is now a Partnerfocused on biotechnology companies; and then Scott Minnick,who is also a biotech guy based in San Francisco. Both Steveand Scott have a significant amount of operating experienceand entrepreneurial success. The venture partner model hasbeen very good for us because it has allowed both sides to trybefore we buy.Aaron: Is it difficult for operating executives to make thetransition to venture?Clint: It can be. I think the really early stage stuff is probably aneasier transition on operating guys because the companiesgenerally need them to be involved in more things. At somepoint, however, people need to make the decision as to whetherthey want to be driving the car or sitting in the backseat. That isthe decision you have to make in going from the operatingworld to venture.Aaron: How has the investment focus of the firm evolved overtime?Clint: We remain focused on three sectors, Life Sciences,Physical Sciences, and IT. IT for us tends to cut across opportu-nities in life sciences and physical sciences. Most of ourphysical science companies involve materials innovations thatlead to semiconductor innovations or innovations in opto-elec-tronics, photonics, energy, and communications. While the termcleantech makes us a bit uncomfortable because of the buzzand hype surrounding it, we have been involved in solar andother renewable technologies for some time.CLINTON BYBEE, CO-FOUNDER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARCH VENTURE PARTNERS2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information Technology
  18. 18. Aaron: How do you manage the transition from one CEO to anew leader?Clint: These can be very uncomfortable conversations to have ifyou don’t have a CEO that’s mature, and self-aware as to his orher own abilities. It is not uncommon for us to put incentives inplace that reward the CEO for finding his replacement.Aaron: I suppose standard vesting schedules on options canbe something of a disincentive for a CEO to move on.Clint: Yes. This is an area where I’ve been spending a fairamount of time over the last year. By and large, most incentiveplans are inadequate. Time vested options are a pretty blunttool that do not correlate all that well to the performance thatdrives shareholder value. The incentive is the longer you stickaround, the more you vest.Aaron: Instead, have you been tying vesting to performanceobjectives?Clint: Yes. The accounting profession did us a bit of a favor inthat regard in that they now for all practical purposes make youaccount for all options using variable accounting treatment, sothere is no longer a disincentive to using milestone vesting asopposed to time based vesting or in addition to time vesting.I’m on the board and compensation committee of three compa-nies where we have recently put together equity incentive plansthat are heavily weighted to milestone vesting and the mile-stones have a very clear correlation to shareholder value, likerevenue, gross margin, profitability, and market share. It ishard to do this in an early stage company, but it gets easier asa business matures and begins to ramp sales.Aaron: Because in the early stages, objectives are fluid?Clint: They are very fluid. Sometimes technical milestones takelonger, often times sales milestones take longer.Aaron: So does that mean milestone based vesting justdoesn’t work at the early stages?Clint: I don’t know. That’s a good question. They are a lot hard-er. In the earliest stages of a company I would probably leantoward a blunt instrument. As the company matures, it is perti-nent to begin to apply sharper and sharper instruments bytying vesting to hitting milestones that are directly correlatedwith building shareholder value. I have seen one ancillary ben-16 www.compstudy.comBINTERVIEWS
  19. 19. Chinese nationals getting educated in the best schools in theWest, doing post docs over here and in Europe, working atplaces like Bell Labs and other great research institutions inthe West and then returning to China to run research labs withbetter funding than they would be able to get in the U.S.This is a major change. There remain plenty of great things towork on by focusing on what we do here in America. I thinkover time, however, that is going to change and we are begin-ning to put relationships in place to begin taking advantage ofinnovations that happen not just here, but internationally aswell. If you kick it up a level and think about the venture indus-try in general, back in the early days of the business you couldthink about building a business largely in the U.S. market. Onlyafter getting to a significant size or reduction in risk could oneimagine building an international operation. This old model haschanged where now you really have to do things on a globalbasis very very early. Now there are often market opportunitiesthat are uniquely Chinese, or uniquely Indian. So I see the busi-ness becoming increasingly more global. I think it has to.17efit in that it provides CEOs a tool around which to drive andmotivate everybody in the organization. For example, one of ourCEOs wanted every single employee tied to this plan and heposted the milestones on the wall so everybody knew the focus.As companies mature, you need to instill more discipline andfocus. You almost have to create a religion around your missionand milestones. The creative people that got the company fromstart-up to a point of greater maturity sometimes have a hardtime with this and the milestone based vesting sure helps totransition to a culture of execution.Aaron: What do you look for when you’re building Boards foryour companies?Clint: We spend an increasing amount of time trying to buildBoards with highly experienced operating executives. Some ofthe most valuable insights for our companies come from theoperating people on the Board. At one of our companies,Cambrios Technologies, we recruited Dan Maydan to the Board.Dan was the former President of Applied Materials. Then werecruited Gene Benucci to the Board. Gene was the Founderand currently Chairman of ATMI, a leading semiconductormaterials company. This company is doing electronic materialsfor touch screens and displays and having two deeply experi-enced operating people from that sector has made a hugeimpact.Aaron: Do you use the role of Executive Chairman?Clint: We do, but mostly in troubled companies or as an interimstep. We have a guy that’s worked with us in a couple of compa-nies as Executive Chairman and he’s a delight to work withbecause he can come in to a company and quickly assess whatneeds to get done. He’s then very good at assuming an interimoperating role and can drive a team hard to transition to thedirection that they need to go. He then is good at recruiting afull-time CEO as his replacement.Aaron: Venture Capital used to be a local business. That’s notyour model. You guys have proven an ability to do it on anational scale. Do you now see the industry globalizing?Clint: Sure. We try to follow the great scientific innovations andtheir innovators, and unfortunately they don’t all exist in theUnited States. There are some great academic research univer-sities in Europe. There are an increasing number of goodscientific innovators in China. There, the pattern involvesCLINTON BYBEE, CO-FOUNDER AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, ARCH VENTURE PARTNERS2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information Technology
  20. 20. CARLOS A. RIVAPresident and Chief Executive OfficerVERENIUMCarlos Riva became President, Chief Executive Officer and Directorof Verenium in June 2007, after the merger of Diversa Corporationand Celunol Corporation closed. Mr. Riva joined Celunol, a private-ly held developer of cellulosic ethanol process technology, asChairman and Chief Executive Officer in 2006.Prior to joining Celunol, from 2003 to 2005, Mr. Riva served asExecutive Director of Amec plc, a major global construction andengineering company based in the United Kingdom, where he wasresponsible for the company’s operations in the United States andBritain and for Amec’s global oil and gas business strategy. From1995 to 2003, Mr. Riva served as Chief Executive Officer ofInterGen, a Boston-based joint venture between Shell and Bechtelthat developed more than 18,000 megawatts of electric generatingcapacity, along with gas storage and pipelines, on six continents.Under his leadership, InterGen raised $9 billion of non-recourseproject financing to construct power projects and grew from adevelopment company concept to a successful, global operatingbusiness. From 1992 to 1994 Mr. Riva was President and ChiefOperating Officer of Boston-based J. Makowski Company, whichdeveloped the first independent power project in the United States.Mr. Riva earned a S.B. and M.S. degrees in Civil Engineering fromthe M.I.T. and Stanford University respectively, and an M.B.A. fromthe Harvard Business School.Aaron: Why don’t we begin with your career history?Carlos: I began my career as a civil engineer. I went to MIT asan undergrad and to Stanford for a graduate degree in engi-neering. My first job after school was with an architectengineering firm called Gilbert/Commonwealth. They wereonce one of the top architect engineers in the country specializ-ing in building nuclear power plants.Aaron: What did you do for the construction firm?Carlos: I was working on design of power projects and other civilengineering projects. The company wasn’t solely in the nuclearbusiness, but that was one of their major areas. During my secondyear there, the accident at Three Mile Island happened. The firmwas located in Pennsylvania, about 100 miles from Three MileIsland, and I remember everyone at the firm being excited becausethey thought the incident would lead to a lot of work. I remembertelling one of my colleagues that he was out of his mind. I viewedthat incident as the twilight of the nuclear industry for a longwhile, so I decided to go back to school to get an MBA and went toHarvard. When I graduated from business school, the last thing Iwanted to do was to go back into the electric power business. Ihave always loved energy and wanted international experience, soI joined a company called Oceaneering International, a publiclylisted company in the oil field services sector. They were the lead-ing technology provider for underwater services to the offshore oiland gas industry. I was in with Oceaneering in the UK and did workall around the North Sea, West Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Iwas later offered the job of running their West Coast US opera-tions. This was principally focused on the offshore California andAlaska markets, and my wife and I decided to move to Anchorage.This was 1985 and oil prices started to fall precipitously, prompt-ing the oil companies to curtail their frontier exploration, and thusevaporating our market.Aaron: The market collapsed while you and your wife were inthe wilderness of Alaska?Carlos: We were not exactly in the wilderness of Alaska, but weloved it. We contemplated staying but concluded it was too faraway so we came back to Boston, which was our home. I joinedup with a local entrepreneur by the name of Jacek Makowski,who is one of the real legends of the energy industry. He hadbeen the developer of the LNG terminal in Everett, MA built byCabot Corp. and had been the genius behind a number of otherhighly innovative projects in the energy industry.18 www.compstudy.comBINTERVIEWS
  21. 21. that point, I was looking to get back to the US and back into ener-gy with a development focus. I have always been interested inrenewables, particularly cellulosic ethanol, and I became awareof Celunol, which was the predecessor of Verenium, and whichhad recently been recapitalized by a group of venture backers.Aaron: What was it that compelled you to Celunol?Carlos: What appealed to me most was that this company had adistinct technological advantage. The company was one of thefront runners of the industry from a technology developmentperspective, but had decided to become more than just a tech-nology provider. We wanted to become further integrated andbecome developers, owners, and operators of production facili-ties using our technology to leverage us into that position.Aaron: This plays to your development experience, but youhave never run a technology company.Carlos: The Company wasn’t looking for a CEO who was a greatscientist, organic chemist, or microbiologist. They were lookingfor someone that could take the business and the science,commercialize it, and develop it into projects.Aaron: How old was the business at this point?Carlos: The business had been started in the early ‘90s and hadgone through a number of evolutionary steps. They tried a cou-ple of times to build commercial scale units, but when oilprices went back down into the teens there just wasn’t a viablebusiness model. Throughout that time, though, they were mov-ing the ball forward with their science and technology.Aaron: What was the state of the business when you joined?Carlos: The science was well ahead of most of the other com-petitors in the sector. It still needed a lot of work and still does,but it was at a stage that I thought was distinctive and could bedriven forward. We had microorganisms that had been geneti-cally modified to ferment the different component sugars ofbiomass into ethanol. We also had a pilot plant in Louisianathat was partially operational. So, we needed to finish buildingout the pilot plant and continue the scaling and technologydevelopment efforts.19Aaron: What did you do with Makowski?Carlos: Jacek had put together an electric power project usingCanadian natural gas, which had never been imported in suchlarge quantities here before for electric power generation. Heestablished a partnership with a number of local utilities and aCanadian gas pipeline company. He was looking for a projectmanager and brought me in to run the project. It was a signifi-cant deal. We developed a 500 megawatt project on theMassachusetts / Rhode Island border which turned out to bethe first IPP built in the US. On the basis of that project, webuilt up a company and developed a number of other large gen-eration projects in the Northeast.Aaron: What ultimately became of that business?Carlos: I had become President of the business and nine yearsafter joining, we sold the business to Bechtel and Pacific Gasand Electric. The new owners then asked me to start a parallelbusiness focused on developing power projects overseas, so Iput together a group in 1995. The new company was calledInterGen. We had some significant early successes. We devel-oped and closed the financing on a 700 megawatt project inGreat Britain, a 700 megawatt project in Mexico (which was thefirst IPP in Mexico) and then a 480 megawatt coal fired project inthe Philippines, all within the first 18 months. Those projectsgave us the anchor to set up development companies for thosethree regions: Europe, Asia, and Latin America, and we contin-ued on at a pretty aggressive pace. Over eight years, from1995-2003, we developed on the order of 15,000 megawatts ofnew projects in a dozen countries. We were planning for an IPOin 2001; then 9/11 and the Enron meltdown happened, combinedwith the unraveling of power markets, here in the US, all mak-ing an IPO impossible for a company like ours. So I was askedby the owners to change the nature of the company from being adeveloper to becoming an operator. We dismantled the develop-ment apparatus and turned the business into a global utility. Idecided that running an operating utility business wasn’t wheremy interests lay and was lured away by a large British engineer-ing contractor called Amec to run a large portion of theirbusiness with a view towards growing the company significantly.Aaron: How did you get connected to Celunol/Verenium?Carlos: I spent three terrific years in the UK, but much of thebusiness Amec hired me to run was not a growth priority and atCARLOS A. RIVA, PRESIDENT & CEO, VERENIUM2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information Technology
  22. 22. Aaron: How was the business funded?Carlos: There was venture capital funding that came in about ayear before I joined from Charles River Ventures, Braemar, RhoCapital, and Khosla Ventures. I think finding a CEO was a chal-lenging process for them because this is such a new industryso it is difficult to pluck someone out of a company with deepexposure to this space. You have to take a bit of a leap of faithon adjacent skills.Aaron: You know the energy industry and are a deal guy.Carlos: That’s right. I wasn’t a science guy, but I had a techni-cal education, so I am not uncomfortable with science andtechnology. I also had experience building companies. Soonafter joining, I knew we would need to get more funding. MyCFO is a brilliant finance and deal guy; not from energy, butfrom life sciences and biotech. He and I were exploring variousoptions and began looking at Diversa. They were a public com-pany based in California that had a lot of interest in biofuelsand were specialists in enzyme technology, which is anotherone of the components that is essential to our productionprocess. They had great technology, but felt it was not beingfully valued and decided to integrate vertically. Both companieswere aware of each other’s strengths and technology, and asour discussions progressed, it became clear that a mergerwould accelerate each of our respective efforts to commerciallyproduce cellulosic ethanol. Technically, Diversa issued sharesand acquired 100% of what was then Celunol, but the Celunolmanagement team was effectively invited to manage the com-bined company.Aaron: What time frame was this?Carlos: This was about a year ago. The combination of the com-panies was important as it provided funding to advance ourcellulosic ethanol technology development. It also made us apublic company. Shortly after we announced the merger weraised an additional $120 million through a convertible debtoffering. We also did a subsequent convertible debt roundwhich raised a further $50 million early this year.20 www.compstudy.comBINTERVIEWS
  23. 23. there for us if we were private, and in the long run, this busi-ness is going to be about raising capital, and the cost of capitalis going to be a critical dimension to competing in this busi-ness. There is also need for more transparency, not only to theoutside world but also internally. I spend much more of mytime than I would have imagined communicating, speaking tomedia, investors, and not only our equity and institutionalinvestors, but also our debt holders, whereas in a private com-pany, these demands are less. But being public has beenimportant for the company, and the communication and trans-parency makes for a healthy management environment. Thereare a lot of challenges obviously. You need to be prepared todefend the positions that you take.Aaron: Are there consolidation opportunities in the industryyet?Carlos: I think it is still early in the cycle, although obviouslythe Diversa and Celunol merger was a consolidation, but therehas not yet been a lot of activity. There is some consolidationgoing on in the first generation biofuels companies, which isdriven by the need to find better operating efficiencies. Our partof the industry is not yet in an operating mode. It is still verymuch about future promise, and while there might be someopportunities for companies to combine to get new technology,I don’t know that we’re yet at the stage where the advancedbiofuels industry needs to consolidate.Aaron: How has team building differed at Verenium comparedwith your previous companies?Carlos: It is a different industry, but a lot of the challengesremain the same. Two years ago, Celunol was a handful of peo-ple. Today we are close to 300 people, so we have grown veryrapidly. Again there is no established cellulosic ethanol industryto speak of, so we drawn talent from adjacent industries inbiotech, chemicals, power, and other places. This means peo-ple have different norms. They have been working inbusinesses in very different contexts, so part of my job as CEOis to forge the group into a cohesive operating team. Over thecourse of the last year, the integration of the two companieshas been a unifying team effort.21Aaron: How has the integration with Diversa gone?Carlos: Extremely well. We had about four months betweenannouncing the deal and getting SEC approval to work out avery detailed plan for integration. It was a little strange becauseCelunol management wasn’t part of Diversa during that fourmonth period, so we had no real management responsibility,but everyone was very cooperative and we were able to inte-grate the businesses very smoothly upon closing. The R&Doperations of the two organizations were merged and moved toSan Diego, which is where Diversa was headquartered.Cambridge was where we had our project development andengineering groups, and we decided to locate our corporateoffices here as well. Our production facilities in Louisianarounded out the organization. All in all, the merger has been asuccess in providing a very strong enzyme business as well asthe strong scientific talent base that we were looking for tosupport the growth of our biofuels technology.Aaron: Does owning the enzyme business give you ameaningful competitive advantage?Carlos: It does, because enzymes are one of the importantingredients in cellulosic ethanol production. It is also a com-pelling commercial business on its own that has been growingrapidly. It is still small, but we had $26 million in product saleslast year. The year before it was $16 million, and this year wehave given guidance that we’ll be just shy of $40 million, so it’sa pretty rapid ramp up. This was quite a change because tradi-tionally most of Diversa’s revenues came from contractresearch, yet there was very little opportunity to get operatingleverage from contract research. So what they really wanted todo was become more of a product driven company. We wereable to facilitate that transition, and it is going quite well.Aaron: How has being public changed the business?Carlos: For starters, the company has changed by virtue ofgrowing very rapidly. I do think about that question a lot, partic-ularly when I see that some of our private competitors are ableto be rather bold in statements to the market. We have to bevery careful about what we say publicly, so we tend to be morecautious and guarded. By the same token, I think that beingpublic gives us access to sources of capital that would not beCARLOS A. RIVA, PRESIDENT & CEO, VERENIUM2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information Technology
  24. 24. Aaron: Typically building a company involves establishing anew culture. Certainly companies have their own identity andculture. My experience is that industries also tend to have aculture. With Verenium drawing on talent from a range ofindustries, has this created something of a cultural meltingpot?Carlos: That’s exactly right. In fact, I think the challenge isinteresting to consider. If cellulosic ethanol has a characteristicas an industry, I would say that it tends to be currently domi-nated by life science and other science intensive industrieswhere matters such as worrying about intellectual property andsecrecy tend to dominate. I feel we have to move as an industryout of that mold and start worrying about our supply chains,relationships with other companies, transparency to the finan-cial community, government relations – all these other issuesthat more evolved industries have dealt with. I am trying to fos-ter a corporate culture around confidence in our capabilities toexecute, rather than feeling that we can be perfectly protectedby our patents.Aaron: How do you recruit people who fit that profile?Carlos: I try not to hire people for today’s company, but to proj-ect out three to five years, when we could have 1,000 peopleand six different cellulosic ethanol plants. For instance, wewere able to hire a woman to run our specialty enzyme busi-ness who was a very senior executive at BP Chemicals, whichwas bought out by a private equity group. She has run billiondollar businesses. The question is, how can we attract that kindof talent into what is still a small company? I think one of thethings that has benefited us is that this industry has enormousappeal. It has psychological appeal in the sense that there ispotentially a disruptive technology to solve one of the greatproblems of our current age and economy, which is the over-reliance on fossil fuels. There are also benefits in the sense ofjob satisfaction because we are tackling pressing environmen-tal and energy security issues. These attributes help us attracttalent that I think would be otherwise unavailable, and thatmakes a significant difference.Aaron: How has the tumult in the public capital marketsaffected you?Carlos: One of our challenges is that we are really the onlypublic cellulosic ethanol company. There are other companiesdeveloping this technology as part of a larger business, but22 www.compstudy.comBINTERVIEWS
  25. 25. 23we’re the only cellulosic ethanol pure play, and I think whattends to happen to us is we get lumped in with the all the otherbiofuels companies. Even though our financial risk profile isvastly different from a grain ethanol or bio-diesel companies,we still get compared to them, so we tend to be subject to therising and falling tides of those industries.Aaron: Another issue I see when recruiting in the cleantechsector is that many of the target markets for talent, like thechemical or energy industries, are comprised mostly of largercompanies that are not historically entrepreneurial. How doyou overcome this?Carlos: Our task is to find the entrepreneurial people in thelarge companies. These types can be found, and when you do,you can unleash that capability and get a lot of leverage.Fortunately, there are a lot of smaller entrepreneurial busi-nesses springing up in these industries, and they are also are arich source of talent for us.Aaron: Where would you like to see the business five yearsfrom now?Carlos: From a technology and commercialization standpoint, Iwant us to be leaders of the pack in the cellulosic world. Iexpect that five years from now, we will have operating facilitiesin the Southeast with various facilities under construction. Wewill license our technology and technology packages morebroadly and likely will be looking to logical places to expandinternationally. Given that we’ve done a lot of work on sugarcane and energy cane as a feedstock in the Southeast, wewould probably look south to the Caribbean or Brazil as logicalareas for expansion. I see our enzyme business also continuingto grow, and I’m very bullish on its potential. Our industry is notgoing to replace oil, but it can take a big chunk out of futuredemand for fossil hydrocarbons. Verenium is right at the vergeof being able to start to construct commercial facilities. Thisputs us at the forefront of the advanced biofuels industry, so Iwant to keep pushing that leadership position and trying to stayahead of the pack. I believe that once you solidify a leadershipposition, one can have a sustainable competitive advantage thatwill allow the company to continue to grow and prosper. This isan industry that in the United States alone, by virtue of themandate of the last energy bill, will grow to 16 billion gallons ayear. At $3.00 a gallon, that’s a $48 billion dollars per yearmarket that nobody owns today. So it’s a race.CARLOS A. RIVA, PRESIDENT & CEO, VERENIUM2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information Technology
  26. 26. $227$237$237$19725th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:Base Salary – 2007 and 2008• CEO base salary increased 4.2% at the average, from$227,000 in 2007 to $237,000 in 2008.Bonus – 2007 and 2008• The average CEO has a target bonus of $102,000 for 2008,which represents 43% of base salary. This compares to anaverage bonus received in 2007 of $69,000 on a total targetbonus of $98,000, an achievement of 71%.Equity Holdings• In 2008, current equity held by the CEO ranges from 3.90% atthe 25th percentile to 6.50% at the 75th percentile. The aver-age equity holding for the CEO is 5.46%.• The average time of hire equity grant for the CEO is 5.40%while the median time of hire grant is 5.00%.Base, Bonus and Equity by Financing Rounds• Average base salary remains relatively constant throughrounds of financing for the CEO. In general, with additionalrounds raised, the range of base salary for the CEO becomestighter. This same trend holds true for CEO bonus.• Average equity position held by the CEO drops steadily withan increase in financing rounds. For those companies withone or fewer rounds raised, the non-founder CEO holds anaverage of 6.28% of the company, compared to 4.86% atcompanies having raised four or more rounds.Base, Bonus and Equity by Founder Status• Non-founder total, actual and target, cash compensation isconsiderably higher than that of the founding CEO, an averageof $339,000 for non-founders in 2008 compared to $286,000for founding CEOs, a 19% premium for non-founders.• Founding CEOs hold an average of 22.05% of their company,as expected a significantly higher amount than non-founderswho had an average of 5.46%.$200 $225 $250$205 $235 $26020072008Base Salary – 2007 and 2008Base Salary by Financing Rounds$205 $235 $260$162 $195 $229Non-FounderFounderBase Salary by Founder Statuswww.compstudy.comBCHIEFEXECUTIVEOFFICER24≤14+2-3$155 $250 $275$235$200 $225 $250$236$220 $240 $265$238
  27. 27. ≤14+2-3$16 $100 $150$113$65 $100 $125$103$75 $100 $125$101≤14+2-33.00% 7.00% 10.00%6.28%4.69% 5.64% 6.50%5.88%3.60% 4.90% 6.00%4.86%Current3.90% 5.00% 6.50%5.46%$102$8825th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:Bonus by Financing Rounds$65 $100 $125Non-FounderBonus by Founder Status2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information Technology$30 $60 $100Founder253.90% 5.00% 6.50%5.46%Time of HireEquity HoldingsEquity by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderEquity by Founder Status8.30% 17.00% 30.00%22.05%3.60% 5.00% 7.00%5.40%Actual Bonus ReceivedTarget Bonus25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:20072008Bonus – 2007 and 2008$65 $98 $100 $125$20 $62 $69 $100$65 $100 $125$102
  28. 28. www.compstudy.comKEY: Salary BonusCash and Equity Compensation by Headcount• With increasing headcount, the total target cash compensa-tion for the CEO rises. Total cash ranges from an average of$280,000 in companies with 1-20 FTEs to $390,000 at thelargest companies surveyed, those with greater than 75 FTEs.• Equity holdings for the CEO follow an inverse trend as com-pany headcount grows. Non-founder CEOs in the smallestcompanies hold 5.88% while those in companies with greaterthan 75 FTEs see equity holdings reduced to 4.99%.Cash and Equity Compensation by Geography• Base salary across the geographies shows little variance out-side the West region, where base salary is 9% lower than theaverage across the regions.• Target bonuses in California and the Mid-Atlantic are thelowest among the regions. However, base salary in Californiais highest at an average of $247,000.Cash and Equity Compensation by BusinessSegment• CEOs at Content/Information companies earn the highesttotal cash package in our report with a total base and targetbonus of $364,000. Additionally, equity holdings in this seg-ment are also highest for the CEO at 7.10%.• Equity holdings among CEOs in the Communications sectorare lowest at just under 3.82% at the average.Cash and Equity Compensation by Revenue• Average total cash compensation for the CEO correlatesdirectly with rising company revenues. In the pre-revenuesegment, the non-founder CEO earns an average total cashpackage of $288,000 while holding 5.78% of the equity of thecompany.• Equity holdings generally decrease in direct proportion withincreasing revenues, though there is a spike in companieswith $5-10M in revenue. CEOs in these companies hold thehighest average level of equity at 5.93%.26 CHIEFEXECUTIVEOFFICERBCash Compensation by Headcount (FTEs)Cash Compensation by Geography$115$2751-20 21-40 41-75 76+$390$106$241$347$99$220$319$77$203$280$98$247$345$107$236$343$90$237$327$106$245$351$121$237$358$107$215$322California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticCash Compensation by Business Segment$112$238$350$92$229$321$123$241$364$90$238$328$81$234$315$97$239$336Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration Provider
  29. 29. KEY: AverageCash Compensation by Revenue$61$227$288$139$280$419$91$219$310$107$223$330$105$269$374Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+RevenueEquity by Revenue5.78%5.10%5.37%5.93%4.96%Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+Revenue2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyCHIEFEXECUTIVEOFFICER27Equity by Headcount (FTEs)Equity by Geography1-20 21-40 41-75 76+4.99%5.31%5.88%5.79%5.11%5.63%5.07%6.11% 6.19%5.01%California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticEquity by Business Segment5.64%4.45%3.82%6.96%5.51%7.10%Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration Provider
  30. 30. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:BBase Salary – 2007 and 2008• President/COOs saw a small increase in average base salaryin 2008, rising $5,000 or 2.8% over 2007.Bonus – 2007 and 2008• Average target bonuses decreased slightly in 2008 for theaverage President/COO, from $63,000 in 2007 to $58,000 in2008. Actual average bonus paid in 2007 was $55,000, whichrepresents an attainment rate of 88%.Equity Holdings• The average current equity holding for the President/COO is2.88%. Time of hire grants range from .80% at the 25th per-centile to 2.60% at the 75th percentile. The average time ofhire grants falls very close to the top quartile at 2.58%.Base, Bonus and Equity by Financing Rounds• President/COOs at companies with one or fewer financingrounds earned, on average, $31,000 less in base salary thantheir counterparts at companies with four or more rounds offinancing raised.• Equity holdings for President/COOs with one or fewer roundsis 4.98% at the average. With dilution from additional roundsraised, the average equity holding decreases to 2.05% inthose companies having raised four or more rounds.Base, Bonus and Equity by Founder Status• Cash compensation for founding President/COOs varieslargely when compared to their non-founder counterparts.• Founding President/COOs hold a 15.43% average equity stakein their companies, compared to 2.88% for non-founders.PRESIDENT/COOwww.compstudy.com2820072008Base Salary – 2007 and 2008Base Salary by Financing Rounds≤14+2-3Non-FounderFounderBase Salary by Founder Status$155 $175 $200$178$183$165 $180 $200$165 $180 $200$183$160 $182 $225$191$165 $190 $200$182$150 $158 $175$162$172 $188 $210$193
  31. 31. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:292008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyTime of HireEquity HoldingsEquity by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderEquity by Founder Status20072008Bonus – 2007 and 2008Bonus by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderBonus by Founder Status0.80% 1.00% 2.60%2.58%1.00% 1.50% 4.00%2.88%4.55% 9.00% 26.90%15.43%$30 $50 $63 $80$11 $32 $55 $60$25 $50 $80$58$25 $50 $80$58$41 $51 $120$108Current1.00% 1.50% 4.00%2.88%≤14+2-3$42 $50 $80$67$9 $30 $80$49$15 $43 $80$52≤14+2-30.10% 1.50% 6.00%4.98%1.00% 2.15% 4.00%2.79%1.00% 1.30% 2.00%2.05%Actual Bonus ReceivedTarget Bonus25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:
  32. 32. Cash Compensation by Business Segment$64$184$248$40$181$221$60$189$249$35$184$219$67$178$245$55$187$242Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration Providerwww.compstudy.comKEY: Salary BonusCash and Equity Compensation by Headcount• Total cash compensation for President/COOs rises steadilywith increasing headcount levels, from $223,000 at the earli-est stages to $269,000 for those companies with more than75 FTEs.• President/COOs average equity holdings decreased graduallyas company headcount grows, though for the largest compa-nies, there is a spike in holdings for the President/COO.Cash and Equity Compensation by Geography• Total cash compensation is highest for President/COOs inCalifornia and New England, driven primarily by the twolargest base salary levels among regions.• Mid-Atlantic and New England President/ COOs hold agreater stake in equity when compared to the overall average.Cash and Equity Compensation by BusinessSegment• President/COOs of Software and Content/InformationProviders earn the highest total cash compensation in 2008at just under $250,000 at the average, though their counter-parts in the Software segment are a very close second.• President/COOs of within the CleanTech sector hold thelargest equity stake at 4.76%.Cash and Equity Compensation by Revenue• Average total cash compensation for the President/COO isgreatest for companies with $20M or more revenues at$305,000.30 PRESIDENT/COO BCash Compensation by Headcount (FTEs)Cash Compensation by Geography$68$2011-20 21-40 41-75 76+$269$54$184$238$52$180$232$67$156$223$63$178$241$76$192$268$49$202$251$62$177$239$54$169$223$47$181$228California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland Atlantic
  33. 33. KEY: AverageCash Compensation by Revenue$47$174$221$58$185$243$64$176$240$48$189$237 $97$208$305Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+RevenueEquity by Revenue2.28%3.29%2.60%9.40%1.27%Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+Revenue2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyPRESIDENT/COO31Equity by Headcount (FTEs)Equity by Geography1-20 21-40 41-75 76+3.04%1.60%6.76%2.79%3.69%2.39%5.34%2.89%1.23%2.25%California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticEquity by Business Segment2.81%4.76%1.43%3.39%2.09%2.71%Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration Provider
  34. 34. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:BBase Salary – 2007 and 2008• Average base salary for CFOs increased 5.2%, or $8,000,from 2007 to 2008.Bonus – 2007 and 2008• Average target bonus for the CFO rose slightly to $49,000 in2008 which represents 29% of base salary.• Bonus attainment in 2007 for the CFO was 63%.Equity Holdings• Time of hire equity grants for non-founding CFOs average1.01% and ranged from 0.30% at the 25th percentile to 1.20%at the 75th percentile.• Average current equity holdings ranged from 0.50% at the25th percentile to 1.20% at the 75th percentile and the aver-age current equity stake falls within this range at 0.94%.Equity holdings did not fluctuate materially for the CFO fromour 2007 report.Base, Bonus and Equity by Financing Rounds• The average CFO base salary generally increases with addi-tional rounds of financing raised, from $159,000, atcompanies having raised 1 or fewer rounds, to $166,000 atcompanies having raised four or more rounds.• Contrary to the effects of dilution, equity holdings for CFOsincreased significantly with 2-3 financing rounds, doubling to1.05%. With four or more rounds raised average equity helddecreases slightly to 0.91% for the CFO.Base, Bonus and Equity by Founder Status• Non-founder CFOs earned an average total cash compensa-tion of $6,000 more than their founding counterparts.• Moreover, founding CFOs are targeted for a $7,000 smalleraverage bonus than non-founding CFOs.• Founding CFOs hold an average equity stake of 3.24%, com-pared to 0.94% for non-founders.CHIEFFINANCIALOFFICERwww.compstudy.com3220072008Base Salary – 2007 and 2008Base Salary by Financing Rounds≤14+2-3Non-FounderFounderBase Salary by Founder Status$130 $156 $180$157$165$144 $165 $185$135 $150 $170$159$144 $165 $185$165$125 $160 $175$159$145 $173 $185$165$138 $174 $188$166
  35. 35. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:332008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyTime of HireEquity HoldingsEquity by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderEquity by Founder Status20072008Bonus – 2007 and 2008Bonus by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderBonus by Founder Status0.30% 1.00% 1.20%1.01%0.50% 0.90% 1.20%0.94%1.00% 2.00% 4.00%3.24%$22 $36 $45 $59$5 $20 $28 $40$25 $40 $55$49$25 $40 $55$49$19 $35 $57$42Current0.50% 0.90% 1.20%0.94%≤14+2-3$25 $35 $80$53$24 $38 $52$48$25 $45 $55$48≤14+2-30.00% 0.05% 1.00%0.52%0.50% 1.00% 1.30%1.05%0.50% 1.00% 1.10%0.91%Actual Bonus ReceivedTarget Bonus25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:
  36. 36. www.compstudy.comKEY: Salary BonusCash and Equity Compensation by Headcount• Average total cash compensation for CFOs climbs steadilywith increasing company headcount.• Equity holdings for CFOs decrease as companies grow to 41-75 FTEs. With more than 75 FTEs equity holdings rise againto 0.94%.Cash and Equity Compensation by Geography• CFOs across each region earn a total cash compensationranging from a high of $228,000 in the Mid-Atlantic to a lowof $174,000 in the Midwest. Base salary is highest forCalifornia CFOs at an average of $176,000.• CFO equity holdings ranged from a high of 1.11% in the Mid-Atlantic to a low of 0.80% in the West.Cash and Equity Compensation by BusinessSegment• CFOs of Communication companies are expected to earn thehighest average total cash compensation for 2008 at $231,000.Cash and Equity Compensation by Revenue• Total cash rises consistently for the CFO with increasingcompany revenues, from nearly $180,000 at pre-revenuecompanies to $262,000 at companies with greater than $20Million in revenue.• CFO equity rises gradually as the company earns greaterrevenue.34 CHIEFFINANCIALOFFICERBCash Compensation by Headcount (FTEs)Cash Compensation by Geography$61$1831-20 21-40 41-75 76+$244$40$167$207$49$153$202$40$136$176$47$176$223$54$168$222$56$172$228$45$162$207$34$140$174$48$150$198California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticCash Compensation by Business Segment$52$164$216$33$162$195$41$151$192$53$178$231$43$171$214$47$153$200Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration Provider
  37. 37. KEY: AverageCash Compensation by Revenue$23$156$179$74$188$262$38$153$191$41$160$201 $56$177$233Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+RevenueEquity by Revenue0.83%0.98%0.87%1.07%0.98%Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+Revenue2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyCHIEFFINANCIALOFFICER35Equity by Headcount (FTEs)Equity by Geography1-20 21-40 41-75 76+0.94%0.84%1.21%1.09%0.98% 0.96%0.80%0.84%1.11%0.84%California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticEquity by Business Segment0.87% 0.89%0.96%1.51%1.04%0.77%Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration Provider
  38. 38. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:BBase Salary – 2007 and 2008• Average base salary for the CTO increased by $8,000, or5.0%, between 2007 and 2008.Bonus – 2007 and 2008• Target bonus increased for CTOs, from an average of $52,000in 2007 to $57,000 in 2008. Actual bonus paid out in 2007averaged of $30,000, a 57% rate of attainment.Equity Holdings• Time of hire grants for the CTO range from 0.20% at the 25thpercentile to 1.70% at the 75th percentile. The average timeof hire grant falls within this spectrum at 1.19%. Averagecurrent equity for the CTO is 1.53%.Base, Bonus and Equity by Financing Rounds• Base salary does not fluctuate greatly for the average CTOrelative to increasing financing rounds.• Compared to early stage companies, average target bonussharply increases for those CTOs in companies that haveraised two or three rounds of financing.• For companies with one or fewer rounds raised the averageequity stake is 1.76%, decreasing for each additional compar-ative financing stage in our report.Base, Bonus and Equity by Founder Status• Non-founding CTOs earn, on average, $10,000 more in totalcash compensation than their founder counterparts.• As expected, founding CTOs hold considerably more equity intheir companies than non-founders, with an average of 8.91%.CHIEFTECHNOLOGYOFFICERwww.compstudy.com3620072008Base Salary – 2007 and 2008Base Salary by Financing Rounds≤14+2-3Non-FounderFounderBase Salary by Founder Status$130 $160 $185$162$170$150 $173 $195$130 $170 $190$166$150 $173 $195$170$140 $170 $190$165$143 $165 $195$168$150 $175 $192$173
  39. 39. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:372008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyTime of HireEquity HoldingsEquity by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderEquity by Founder Status20072008Bonus – 2007 and 2008Bonus by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderBonus by Founder Status0.20% 1.00% 1.70%1.19%0.60% 1.00% 2.00%1.53%2.50% 6.00% 13.30%8.91%$24 $40 $52 $65$5 $20 $30 $50$20 $37 $63$57$20 $37 $63$57$22 $40 $60$52Current0.60% 1.00% 2.00%1.53%≤14+2-3$9 $27 $37$38$25 $45 $70$69$20 $42 $63$54≤14+2-30.00% 1.00% 1.80%1.76%0.50% 1.00% 2.00%1.64%1.00% 1.10% 1.70%1.28%Actual Bonus ReceivedTarget Bonus25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:
  40. 40. www.compstudy.comKEY: Salary BonusCash and Equity Compensation by Headcount• Total cash compensation for CTOs gradually increases withincreasing headcount. At the largest companies, there is alarger jump in total cash compensation, driven by a targetbonus nearly double that of the next smaller company stageCTO.Cash and Equity Compensation by Geography• CTOs in California earn the highest average base salary at$189,000.• Average total cash compensation for the CTO varies widelyacross regions.• CTO equity holdings are greatest in California, at 2.18% fol-lowed by the West with 1.64%.Cash and Equity Compensation by BusinessSegment• Software CTOs are expected to earn the largest total cashcompensation in 2008 at $242,000 and will enjoy the largestequity stake in their companies with 1.81%.Cash and Equity Compensation by Revenue• CTOs at the most developed companies, those with greaterthan $20M in revenues, earn considerably more cash com-pensation at the average than CTOs at smaller companies.38BCHIEFTECHNOLOGYOFFICERCash Compensation by Headcount (FTEs)Cash Compensation by Geography1-20 21-40 41-75 76+$44$174$218$48$164$212$50$155$205 $85$183$268$119$169$288$53$189$242$42$161$203$33$178$211$74$156$230$24$139$163California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticCash Compensation by Business Segment$71$171$242$45$160$205$34$155$189$55$185$240$43$179$222$35$173$208Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration Provider
  41. 41. KEY: AverageCash Compensation by Revenue$51$149$200$43$168$211$38$151$189$58$185$243$110$185$295Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+RevenueEquity by Revenue0.82%1.74%1.78%1.95%0.93%Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+Revenue2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyCHIEFTECHNOLOGYOFFICER39Equity by Headcount (FTEs)Equity by Geography1-20 21-40 41-75 76+0.98%1.13%1.45%2.90%2.18%1.59% 1.57%1.10%1.64%0.69%California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticEquity by Business Segment1.81%1.03%0.90%1.76%1.34%1.10%Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration Provider
  42. 42. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:Base Salary – 2007 and 2008• Average base salaries for Heads of Engineering rose by$7,000 from 2007 to 2008.Bonus – 2007 and 2008• Average target bonus did not change materially from 2007 to2008, rising $1,000 for the Head of Engineering.• Bonus attainment in 2007 for the Head of Engineering was 63%.• 2008 target bonus as a percentage of base salary is 24%.Equity Holdings• The median equity grant remains at 1.00% at time of hire for theHead of Engineering, though at the average that figure is 1.29%.• Current equity for Heads of Engineering ranges from 0.50%at the 25th percentile to 1.50% at the 75th percentile, with anaverage of 1.29%.Base, Bonus and Equity by Financing Rounds• Average base salary for Heads of Engineering trends slightlyupward based on the number of rounds of financing, rangingfrom $153,000 for companies with one or fewer rounds raisedto $166,000 for companies with two or three financing rounds.• Average target bonus decreases steadily as the company rais-es additional rounds of funding. However, the median Head ofEngineering experiences little change in target bonus.• Consistent with the expected effects of dilution, average cur-rent equity holdings for Heads of Engineering decrease whencomparing companies across financing stages. At the earlieststage, the Head of Engineering holds 1.79% of the company,decreasing to 0.99% at companies with four or more roundsraised. Interestingly, at the median Heads of Engineeringhold 1.00% across all rounds of funding.Base, Bonus and Equity by Founder Status• Non-founding Heads of Engineering receive an average basesalary that is slightly higher than their founder counterparts.• As expected, founding Heads of Engineering have a substan-tially greater current equity stake in the company. Theaverage current equity for founders is 6.22% while for non-founders it is 1.29%.www.compstudy.comBHEAD OFENGINEERING4020072008Base Salary – 2007 and 2008Base Salary by Financing Rounds≤14+2-3Non-FounderFounderBase Salary by Founder Status$135 $150 $175$156$163$147 $165 $180$130 $150 $188$153$147 $165 $180$163$145 $162 $175$161$150 $165 $180$166$146 $165 $180$163
  43. 43. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:412008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyTime of HireEquity HoldingsEquity by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderEquity by Founder Status20072008Bonus – 2007 and 2008Bonus by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderBonus by Founder Status0.30% 1.00% 1.50%1.29%0.50% 1.00% 1.50%1.29%1.50% 4.60% 8.00%6.22%$20 $30 $38 $50$6 $15 $24 $30$24 $31 $50$39$24 $31 $50$39$16 $30 $50$49Current0.50% 1.00% 1.50%1.29%≤14+2-3$20 $31 $80$56$25 $32 $50$39$14 $30 $43$33≤14+2-30.10% 1.00% 2.00%1.79%0.80% 1.00% 1.50%1.34%0.40% 1.00% 1.40%0.99%Actual Bonus ReceivedTarget Bonus25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:
  44. 44. www.compstudy.comKEY: Salary BonusCash and Equity Compensation by Headcount• Base salary increases for the Head of Engineering as theircompany increases in size from 21-40 FTEs to 41-75 FTEs, a$9,000 rise.• Target bonus remains largely unchanged for the Head ofEngineering across company sizes.• As expected, equity holdings decline for the non-founderHeads of Engineering as the company grows.Cash and Equity Compensation by Geography• Total cash compensation is highest among Heads ofEngineering in California as compared to the other regions,driven by the largest base salary and highest target bonus atthe average.• Heads of Engineering in California also lead the pack withthe largest average equity holdings, at 1.73%.Cash and Equity Compensation by BusinessSegment• CleanTech Heads of Engineering earn the lowest total cashand equity compensation of the segments, driven by a basesalary of $144,000.Cash and Equity Compensation by Revenue• Average total cash compensation for Heads of Engineeringrises gradually as a company grows in revenue, from$196,000 at pre-revenue companies to $214,000 for thosewith companies earning more than $20M.• Not surprisingly, Heads of Engineering for companies thatare pre-revenue have much greater current equity holdingsthan their counterparts at companies with revenues in excessof $5M.42BHEAD OFENGINEERINGCash Compensation by Headcount (FTEs)Cash Compensation by Geography$38$1681-20 21-40 41-75 76+$206$41$167$208$35$158$193$44$159$203$48$179$227$37$161$198$40$157$197$30$154$184$39$149$188California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticSamplesize toosmall toreportCash Compensation by Business Segment$42$162$204$28$144$172$45$147$191$50$156$206$29$176$205Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration ProviderSamplesize toosmall toreport
  45. 45. KEY: AverageCash Compensation by Revenue$34$162$196$39$159$198$33$169$202$46$168$214$47$162$209Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+RevenueEquity by Revenue1.24%1.35%1.84%0.97%0.81%Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+Revenue2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyHEAD OFENGINEERING43Equity by Headcount (FTEs)Equity by Geography1-20 21-40 41-75 76+1.02%0.96%1.24%1.98%0.97%1.00% 1.06%1.30%1.73%California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticSamplesize toosmall toreportEquity by Business Segment1.39%0.78%1.16%1.30% 1.34%Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration ProviderSamplesize toosmall toreport
  46. 46. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:BBase Salary – 2007 and 2008• Average base salary for Heads of Sales increased by 4.3%from 2007 to 2008.Bonus – 2007 and 2008• Average 2008 projected bonuses for Heads of Sales areexpected to be significantly higher, 42.8%, than actual bonus-es paid in 2007. However, the average target bonus for 2008is 2% lower than the average target bonus for 2007.Equity Holdings• The average time of hire equity grant for non-founding Headsof Sales is 1.20%, which is above the median of 1%.• On average, the Head of Sales holds 1.21% of the company’sequity.Base, Bonus and Equity by Financing Rounds• Average base salaries for Heads of Sales are approximatelyequal at companies that have had two to three rounds offinancing and at companies that have had four or morerounds. Average target bonuses for that position steadilyincrease at companies with more rounds of financing. Theaverage projected bonus is almost $10,000 higher at compa-nies with four or more rounds of financing than at companieswith one or fewer rounds of financing.• Heads of Sales at companies with one or fewer rounds offinancing raised have relatively wide ranging equity holdings,from zero at the 25th percentile to 2.70% at the 75th per-centile. This can possibly be explained by variedresponsibilities for the role in early stage ventures.Salary, Bonus and Equity by Founder Status• The average base salary for founding Heads of Sales is onlyslightly higher than the average base salary for non-founders, while the median non-founder Head of Sales earnsslightly more in base salary.• The non-founding Heads of Sales are anticipated to receivean average at-plan bonus of $98,000 in 2008, compared to$77,000 for founders in the same year.• Founding Heads of Sales make up the difference in equityholdings. Founding Heads of Sales hold more than six timesthe amount of equity as their non-founding counterparts. Thisis a nearly 100% increase in their equity holdings from 2007.HEAD OFSALESwww.compstudy.com4420072008Base Salary – 2007 and 2008Base Salary by Financing Rounds≤14+2-3Non-FounderFounderBase Salary by Founder Status$140 $160 $180$160$167$150 $169 $190$120 $150 $180$150$150 $169 $190$167$150 $165 $185$170$150 $170 $185$169$150 $169 $190$170
  47. 47. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:452008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyTime of HireEquity HoldingsEquity by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderEquity by Founder Status20072008Bonus – 2007 and 2008Bonus by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderBonus by Founder Status0.50% 1.00% 1.50%1.20%0.60% 1.00% 1.40%1.21%1.75% 3.00% 15.00%7.45%$50 $100 $100 $150$22 $50 $70 $100$40 $90 $150$98$40 $90 $150$98$24 $37 $150$77Current0.60% 1.00% 1.40%1.21%≤14+2-3$30 $75 $130$92$40 $90 $150$97$40 $100 $150$100≤14+2-30.00% 0.75% 2.70%1.41%0.80% 1.00% 1.40%1.14%0.60% 1.00% 1.30%1.21%Actual Bonus ReceivedTarget Bonus25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:
  48. 48. www.compstudy.comKEY: Salary BonusCash and Equity Compensation by Headcount• Both average base salary and average target bonus forHeads of Sales steadily increase as company headcountincreases from 1-20 to 76 or more full-time employees(FTEs), with average salary 24% higher and average expected2008 bonus 32.5% higher at the larger companies.• Equity holdings steadily decline as company headcount increas-es with Heads of Sales at companies with 76 or more FTEsholding 0.88% of equity as compared to Heads of Sales at com-panies with 1-20 FTEs who hold 1.70% of equity on average.Cash and Equity Compensation by Geography• Heads of Sales in California are projected to edge out theircounterparts in the other geographies in total cash compen-sation for 2008, followed closely by those in the Mid-Atlanticand South. This marks a shift from 2007, when the total cashcompensation of the Heads of Sales in the Mid-Atlantic andNew England topped the charts.• Equity holdings for Heads of Sales in the Mid-Atlantic outpaceholdings in other regions at an average of 1.51%, as com-pared to 1.30% in New England and 1.15% in California. Equityholdings for Heads of Sales in the Midwest and the South aresignificantly lower, at 0.95% and 0.97% respectively.Cash and Equity Compensation by BusinessSegment• Average total cash compensation continues to be higher forHeads of Sales in the Software segment than in other segments.2008 bonuses are also projected to be higher for Heads of Salesin this segment, at almost 1.5 times more than target bonuses inthe IT Services/Consulting/Systems Integration segment.• Non-founder Heads of Sales equity holdings vary significantlyacross business segments. Interestingly, those in theCleanTech segment are at the top of the pack, with equityholdings at 1.84%.Cash and Equity Compensation by Revenue• Total cash compensation for Heads of Sales trends upwardas company revenues increase, with Heads of Sales at com-panies with $20M+ of revenue receiving 45.6% more than atpre-revenue companies.• Equity holdings by Heads of Sales are the highest at pre-rev-enue companies. Heads of Sales at companies with $10-$20Mof revenue hold the lowest percentage of equity on average.46 HEAD OFSALES BCash Compensation by Headcount (FTEs)Cash Compensation by Geography$110$1801-20 21-40 41-75 76+$290$102$176$278$91$160$251$83$145$228$93$164$257$98$168$266$91$177$268$112$173$285$69$154$223$95$157$252California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticCash Compensation by Business Segment$113$170$283$48$149$197$88$165$253$91$161$252$79$168$247$72$160$232Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration Provider
  49. 49. KEY: AverageCash Compensation by Revenue$81$162$243$91$160$251$96$170$266$108$170$278$118$183$301Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+RevenueEquity by Revenue1.31%1.45%1.00%1.26%0.89%Pre- Up to $5M $5 – 10M $10 – 20M $20M+Revenue2008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyHEAD OFSALES47Equity by Headcount (FTEs)Equity by Geography1-20 21-40 41-75 76+0.88%1.08%1.26%1.70%1.15%1.30%0.97%1.51%0.95%1.18%California New Mid- Midwest West SouthEngland AtlanticEquity by Business Segment1.33%1.84%0.77%0.89%1.11%0.99%Software Communications Hardware, Services, Content, CleanTechSemiconductors, Consulting, InfoElectronics Integration Provider
  50. 50. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:BSalary and Bonus – 2007 and 2008• Average base salary for Heads of Marketing increased slight-ly, by 3.75%, between 2007 and 2008, rising from $160,000 to$166,000. The median base salary increased by $10,000.• The average target bonus for Heads of Marketing remainedflat from 2007 to 2008, though Heads of Marketing received,on average, 62.5% of their target bonus last year.Equity Holdings• Time of hire grants for Heads of Marketing averaged 0.91%, a24% decrease from 2007.• On average, the Head of Marketing holds 0.92% of their com-pany.Salary, Bonus and Equity by Financing Rounds• The average and median base salary for Heads of Marketingsteadily increases as companies raise additional rounds offinancing, evidencing the greater need for marketing expert-ise as companies mature. On the other hand, the averagebonus for Heads of Marketing decreases with additionalrounds of financing. The average projected bonus for Headsof Marketing dips by $7,000 from companies with two ormore rounds of financing to those with four or more rounds.• Average equity holdings for Heads of Marketing at companieswith two to three rounds are higher than average equity hold-ings for Heads of Marketing one or fewer rounds. The equityholdings for the Head of Marketing in the later stage compa-nies almost match the holdings for the Heads of Marketing atcompanies with one or fewer rounds.Salary, Bonus and Equity by Founder Status• As expected, average base salary and average target bonusfor non-founders are higher than for founding Heads ofMarketing, reflecting the cost of bringing in outside market-ing expertise.• Average equity holdings are significantly greater forfounders, 7.19%, than for non-founders, 0.92%.HEADOFMARKETINGwww.compstudy.com4820072008Base Salary – 2007 and 2008Base Salary by Financing Rounds≤14+2-3Non-FounderFounderBase Salary by Founder Status$140 $160 $175$160$166$146 $170 $185$135 $160 $180$159$146 $170 $185$166$135 $168 $178$159$150 $165 $184$165$145 $170 $190$169
  51. 51. 25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY:492008 Compensation & Entrepreneurship Report in Information TechnologyTime of HireEquity HoldingsEquity by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderEquity by Founder Status20072008Bonus – 2007 and 2008Bonus by Financing RoundsNon-FounderFounderBonus by Founder Status0.20% 0.90% 1.25%0.91%0.40% 0.90% 1.25%0.92%1.30% 2.50% 9.32%7.19%$25 $40 $48 $55$5 $25 $30 $40$25 $40 $55$48$25 $40 $55$48$20 $30 $60$43Current0.40% 0.90% 1.25%0.92%≤14+2-3$10 $30 $72$53$25 $45 $60$50$25 $40 $55$43≤14+2-30.00% 0.70% 1.00%0.69%0.65% 1.00% 1.37%1.10%0.30% 0.70% 1.00%0.74%Actual Bonus ReceivedTarget Bonus25th 75thpercentile Median percentileMeanKEY: