Thoughts on startups by investors that
fund them & entrepreneurs that run them

Keep It Under Your Hat: Valuation Caps and the $650 Million Sale of MySpace for $125 Million

Entrepreneurs and investors who have spent any time dealing with convertible debt seed financing transactions are likely to have encountered the subject of valuation caps.  In brief, a cap acts to place a limit on the conversion price of a convertible note such that investors are guaranteed a minimum number of shares for their bridge loans if the startup does a priced equity round at a high pre-money valuation – “high” meaning above the cap, which is often a heavily negotiated term.  (The cap is irrelevant if the next equity financing is at a valuation below the cap amount.)  Rather than reinvent the wheel, I would point readers to Martin Kleppmann’s useful  blog post with graphs illustrating the effects of a valuation cap on entrepreneurs, seed investors and later-round (typically VC) investors.

Valuation caps can come into play in settings other than seed-stage convertible note financing rounds.  Depending on the circumstances, they can shape the fundamentals of an exit, redistribute value among stakeholders, or even kill a deal altogether.  Never missing an opportunity for a good war story, I’d like to revisit one high-profile transaction, the $650 million acquisition of MySpace by Fox Interactive Media in 2005, on which I spent many sleepless nights along with the rest of the deal team.  This discussion expands on my Quora answer to a specific question: “Why were the stock options of MySpace employees worthless even though the company was sold to News Corporation for hundreds of millions?”  The complete story includes a startup-within-a-startup, investments and exits by two VC firms, and some genuine corporate drama.

The TL;DR answer to the stock option question is that MySpace options were cashed out at modest value at the time of the FIM merger, coming on the heels of the spin-out of MySpace into a separate subsidiary by parent company Intermix Media, with an infusion of new capital from Redpoint Ventures.  There were two distinct classes of employee equity (issued by Intermix and MySpace, respectively) with different valuation and vesting situations—and, most significantly, a $125 million valuation cap applied to the buyout of MySpace equity that was triggered by the acquisition of Intermix.  Read on for a fuller explanation.

Because Intermix was a publicly traded company (AMEX: MIX), the related SEC filings and their exhibits, including the 81-page proxy statement and 42-page merger agreement, make for good bedtime reading.  For more page-turning corporate drama, including the feud between Intermix co-founders and UCLA college buddies Brett Brewer and Brad Greenspan, Nasdaq delisting, proxy contest and lawsuits by Greenspan after he was fired as CEO, see Stealing MySpace by WSJ reporter Julia Angwin.

The early history of MySpace is inextricably intertwined with that of Intermix, a small-cap publicly traded Internet company in Los Angeles where I worked as corporate counsel from 2004-06.  MySpace was incubated by a small team of employees within Intermix in 2003 (Chris DeWolfe, Tom Anderson and four others).  Intermix had acquired their previous online marketing startup, ResponseBase, and they remained a cohesive group.  Intermix wasn’t an “incubator” per se, but it created, acquired and operated a portfolio of consumer Web properties in the areas of content, community and e-commerce, of which MySpace turned out to be the biggest hit by orders of magnitude, becoming the fastest growing site in the history of the Internet and the defining brand of the social media explosion between 2004 and 2008.

Intermix was in a turnaround situation when I arrived in mid-2004, having been delisted from Nasdaq and nearly bankrupt.  VantagePoint Venture Partners came to the rescue in late 2003 with an infusion of $15 million in capital, adding Andrew Sheehan (now at Sutter Hill Ventures) and David Carlick (now at Rho Ventures) to the Board. Part of the deal was bringing in a new CEO, Richard Rosenblatt.  The company was relisted on AMEX, financial performance and traffic metrics improved, and its stock price climbed from about $2/share in July 2004 to $12/share cash offered a year later by FIM, a newly created unit of News Corporation. Although Intermix was doing well during that period, bringing in around $75 million annual revenue, all of the explosive traffic growth was occurring at one property, MySpace – the jewel for which FIM ended up acquiring the whole Intermix crown.

By the fall of 2004, the site’s explosive growth attracted the attention of many potential investors and buyers.  Redpoint, led by Geoff Yang, invested $11.5 million for a 25% stake in MySpace (spun out from Intermix as a majority-controlled subsidiary), with Geoff and Chris Moore joining its board of directors. The spin-out took a few months to negotiate and didn’t actually close until February 2005.  MySpace became its own company, MySpace, Inc., with Intermix owning 53%, MySpace Ventures (an entity owned by the six founders) holding 19.9%, Redpoint taking 25%, and the remainder going to employee stock options. (At that time, the MySpace team had grown to some 30 or 40 employees, housed in separate office space in Santa Monica.) These options were granted shortly after MySpace, Inc. was spun out, and the valuation was set by that financing round. The MySpace founders took some money off the table in the Redpoint deal, albeit at a $35 million pre-money valuation.

Intermix and its advisors weren’t fools. They knew MySpace was a hot property and that acquisition offers were likely, so the spin-out was structured with an option that gave Intermix the right to buy back the remaining 47% of MySpace, Inc. at a predetermined valuation of $125 million if a bona fide offer to acquire Intermix was received within a year (i.e., by February 2006). From the parent company perspective, it would have been reckless to do a spin-out without such a provision because most potential acquirers would insist on owning 100% of MySpace. That buyout option was limited by another clause stating that that if MySpace itself received a direct bona fide acquisition offer valuing it at more than $125 million, the Intermix buyout option would terminate. (This set off a race of sorts once it became clear the company was in play.)

Within weeks after the Redpoint deal closed, in the spring of 2005, Intermix was signing NDAs and taking meeting requests from people who wanted to acquire MySpace. This part of the story is told in both Stealing MySpace and in the “Background of the Merger” section of the merger proxy.  In summary, others took too long to execute or weren’t serious enough shoppers, but Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation pounced on the deal, acquiring Intermix for $12/share in cash ($580 million). News also funded the $69 million Intermix needed to buy out the 47% minority interest immediately so that it owned 100% of MySpace, Inc. Therefore, the true purchase price was $649 million rather than the widely reported $580 million figure.

At the end of the day, this liquidity event paid off as follows:

  • Intermix founders/stockholders received $12/share cash in the merger, equivalent to the $580 million merger consideration;
  • Intermix employees had vested options cashed out at the spread between their strike price and $12/share, and their unvested options cut in half for no particular reason (causing much resentment) and converted into phantom stock vesting over time as a(n ineffective) retention tool;
  • The small number of MySpace employees who had moved over from Intermix and held Intermix options (like me) had the same result as above;
  • The MySpace co-founders who collectively owned 19.9% of MySpace, Inc. were paid their share of the proceeds of the buyout (but again, based on a $125 million valuation);
  • Finally, MySpace employees who were hired after the spin-out in early 2005 received only MySpace stock options. None of them had hit the one-year cliff for vesting, but the parties agreed to vest their options to keep the troops happy; nevertheless, the dollar amounts were not large, again because of the $125 million valuation cap.

To sum up, as a result of the capped buyout option at the Intermix level, Intermix shareholders (including executives and long-time employees with vested options) exited at a $580 million valuation that captured most of the value created by the success of MySpace, and the MySpace founders, investors and employees were limited by the capped upside.  For a detailed analysis of the investments by VantagePoint and Redpoint and their respective returns, see Bill Burnham’s excellent blog post.

Reasonable minds can differ on the relative fairness of the outcome for all involved, but the major lesson in my opinion is that the way the buyout option was structured — within the context at the time — transformed the economics in ways that might have been foreseeable but certainly were not guaranteed.  To be sure, exiting at a 4X valuation in less than a year is not a bad investment, but it’s also not the type of exit that angels, VCs and founders usually have in mind.  Redpoint was understandably disappointed that it didn’t get the chance to see its MySpace investment through to an IPO or later liquidity event at a higher multiple.

This article is for general informational purposes only, not a substitute for professional legal advice. It does not result in the creation of an attorney-client relationship. All opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent those of Gust.

Written by Antone Johnson

user Antone Johnson Founding Principal,
Bottom Line Law Group

Antone is a business lawyer and executive advising technology and media companies, entrepreneurs and investors in corporate, commercial and intellectual property matters. Johnson is Founding Principal of Bottom Line Law Group, a business and IP law firm and was the former VP and head of worldwide legal affairs at eHarmony.

prev next

You might also be interested in

Co-founder Equity Split: A New Framework to Objectively Divide Startup Ownership and Get Back to Building a Business

We’ve just released our free Co-founder Equity Split tool. It’ll give you a fair and objective recommendation about how to divide your startup’s ownership, so you and your co-founders will have a sensible, real starting point for this notoriously hard, crucially important conversation.

Many startup founders find themselves lacking clarity and direction when it comes time to divide their

Read more >

From Accelerators to Venture Capital: What is best for your startup?

With startup growth up 61% since 2014 and more investment programs emerging, it can be overwhelming for founders to know just where to jump in. As the most startup-friendly accelerator on the planet, MassChallenge has helped 835 startup companies around the world, who have raised over $1.1 billion in funding and created over 6,500 jobs. We have seen startups at

Read more >

Valuation Part I: Peeling the Onion, or How Top Investors Value the Startups They Invest In

Update 2017: To help you understand how your startup will look to investors according to this methodology, we’ve created a fundraising feedback tool that will give you investor-level insight into your startup’s performance. In just about 15 minutes, it will tell you how much money your startup is likely to raise, where you can find that capital, and what to

Read more >

Starting a Startup as CTO / Head of Product

After less than a year, Glassbreakers is now a team of 10, we have thousands of active users on our free product, we’ve expanded into enterprises with paying customers and raised over a million in seed funding. After a few of my Glassbreaker matches inquired, I started to reflect on what it’s like to build a startup

Read more >

18 Ways to Make Your Financial Model Stand Out to Investors

The median investor looking at your proposal is in her 40s. Her eyes are going, not to mention her brain. I look at a lot of spreadsheets and analytic reports, and way too many are difficult to read and therefore hard to understand.

In an effort to make my life easier, I’ve summarized here the steps that will

Read more >


7 thoughts on “Keep It Under Your Hat: Valuation Caps and the $650 Million Sale of MySpace for $125 Million”

  1. Rhody says:

    I’ve been to that building. It’s a big dump, a 21st century high tech sweatshop. Rose gets a bunch of eager college grads or MBAs, pays them meager wages, and promises them getting shares in his various angel deals/scams.

  2. evbart says:

    @Rhody I think we would all agree with you about the building. In particular the possessed man-eating elevator, but you’ve got to take into account its proximity to the Shake shack!

    Sounds like you’re a bit confused about whats happening here.

    First, there’s Angelsoft (where I work), and its definitely a first rate organization creating deal tracking software for early stage private equity investors (VCs, Angels, etc). We may be eager, but we are NOT recent college grads or MBAs working soley for equity.

    Second, there’s the incubator. These people run their own companies, and they choose to operate out of the incubator for a variety of reasons (share resources, being part of a startup community, etc)

    Should you want to do some more reading on incubators, here’s a few more:

    If you take issue with the incubator model or early stage investing, and want to discuss it, we’d love to hear your thoughts.

  3. Rather strange comment, Rhody, but glad the AngelSoft team doesn’t feel the need to delete it.

    As Evan said above, the building certainly has its character, but the working space is pretty lively and full of people who enjoy what they do.

    Most people here are self-lead entrepreneurs (workers in their own sweatshops, I suppose), while the employees of companies here (from AngelSoft to PerformLine) work for the companies because they believe in their mission and enjoy it.

    It’s a highly competitive industry and City — folks work here because they choose to!

  4. Rhody says:

    Good pushback. Guess I’ve been hearing from too many disgruntled ex-inhabitants of the building. I agree and am a fan of the incubator model. Those are folks who are going to overlook a man-eating elevator, and be grateful to have a place in which they can pursue their dreams.

  5. I agree and am a fan of the incubator model. Those are folks who are going to overlook a man-eating elevator, and be grateful to have a place in which they can pursue their dreams.

  6. David S. Rose takes Tech Confidential on a tour of the building in which Angelsoft resides. The same building now houses the New York Angels, SparkSpace incubator,
    thank you so much

    Thank you for the information

    The article is very professionally written. I enjoy reading every day

    good url!

    good web!

    good website!

    nice post!

    i like it!

  7. The first one is very nice.. I like it very much..

    Everywhere in the LV, a bit mean!

    it’s nice ,i want to get one

    i like it ,thanks

    I liked this text and i appreciated. I’ve read all. When i was surfing , i watched a video

    I love your site and the article is useful!This is my blog, Welcome!

    I really thank to one who wrote this article. I have always been reading and writing texts like this in blogs. Also, I, as a daily writer, present my respects to everyone. I just watched videos like this in research in all areas.
    I think people must first research before writing.