Entrepreneurs offer their life’s future earnings for an investment

A truism in the venture capital industry is that firms “invest in people,” not just great business ideas. So what if that premise was literally true?

Three entrepreneurs are offering a share of their life’s income in exchange for cash upfront and have banded together to form the Thrust Fund, an online marketplace for such personal investments.

Kjerstin Erickson, a 26-year-old Stanford graduate who founded a non-profit called FORGE that rebuilds community services in Sub-Saharan African refugee camps, is offering 6 percent of her life’s income for $600,000.

“So many friends are in the same boat as me — they’re struggling along, wanting to see so much more from their organizations or to let them fly on their own. But it’s hard not being able to get out of the daily grind and raise what you need for payroll,” she said. “The Thrust Fund is appealing because it lets me fast-forward a couple years.”

Erickson said she’s close to signing a deal within the next few weeks and is already fielding several potential investors. A back of the envelope calculation suggests that she would have to earn roughly $250,000 a year after taxes until she turned 65 for an investor to break even, excluding inflation and the opportunity cost of investing elsewhere.

Considering that she’s so far devoted her life to the social sector and valued impact over immediate salary, those would seem like tough odds. But Erickson countered that she’s looking to build a for-profit venture next and that her tenacity in building a multi-national non-profit at 20 is evidence she could succeed.

Plus, the nature of a life investment contract is personal: some investors want a pure cash return, while others would be satisfied with a mix of social impact and financial accountability. Still others consider this a form of artistic patronage with captured upside.

She pointed out that people pursuing unconventional career paths without consistent salaries like novelists and film producers have chances to score outsized hits. Elizabeth Gilbert published the bestselling book “Eat Pray Love” at 33, while President Barack Obama, who spent years in community organizing and public interest law, was paying off student loans until his autobiography, “Dreams From My Father,” came out.

Erickson’s Thrust Fund comes at a time of deep experimentation in early-stage financing across the technology and media industries. The transparency afforded by social networking is making it easier for investors to vet people’s reputations and hold them accountable. At the same time, the initial amount of capital needed to build, market and distribute a product or service has fallen, undermining the venture capital model and making angel investors relatively more powerful.

The social sector is no exception. The idea to start a fund came from an angel investor, Rafe Furst (pictured left), who had already signed a life investment contract. Furst, a serial entrepreneur who started and sold Pick’Em Sports in 1999, devised the original contract after seeing similar deals in the world of professional poker.

“In the poker world, there’s this concept of backing or stackhorsing where you have a talented player that’s gone broke,” Furst said. “They don’t have a bankroll but you could back them and take a share of their later winnings.”

Furst and his partner Phil Gordon were intrigued by the idea of applying such a contract in the real world to talented people early in their careers.

“We all know people who are going to do great things with their lives. It’s just a matter of time,” he said. “What if you were able to add capital to the equation and suddenly create a bigger pie that you both could share in?”

But Furst couldn’t get over the uncomfortable idea that such a contract equated to indentured servitude. So he structured a buyout clause in the agreement that lets the investee repay a multiple of the initial amount if they want to exit the agreement. If they decide to buy themselves out in less than three years, he’ll ask for three times the investment. But if they wait, the multiple rises with every year until it reaches a maximum of ten times the initial amount.

Furst’s investee, who he presented at the TED Conference in Long Beach last month, is a filmmaker who also happens to be his brother-in-law. Jon Gunn has solid work in the pipeline: he’s writing two animated feature-length films for Dreamworks and a movie for Paramount based on a Mattel toy. (Think “Transformers”, he says.) Plus he directed a recently released film called “Like Dandelion Dust” starring Mira Sorvino that swept up 26 awards at 23 recent festivals.

But to get to that point, Gunn built up debt by putting filmmaking above regular-paying jobs.

“I started to find myself creatively restrained because of financial limitations, meaning I wasn’t able to make strategic smart career decisions,” he said. “I was taking jobs I wouldn’t have taken, projects I wouldn’t have done and that was pushing me away from getting to the next big thing.”

“A year ago, Phil approached me and said it sounded like I had a lot of really good things going on. He asked, ‘What would it take for me to own 1 percent of you?’”

Gordon and Furst both bought 1 percent of Gunn’s future life income for $125,000 each. Gunn said he’s used the money to pay off debts and give himself breathing room as he works on three films.

The contract has spurred an intense debate within the social enterprise community. Nathaniel Whittemore, who is building a startup called Assetmap that helps groups manage their resources, argued that he wouldn’t take the investment, because he values freedom and the upfront money isn’t enough to have an impact.

“The idea of the lifetime debt, even though I know it is a potentially good financial deal, is unpalatable to me,” wrote Whittemore, who is debating Erickson tonight in downtown San Francisco.

Neither Furst nor Gordon get any official say in what their investee does with the money. The same is true of Erickson’s agreement, although she plans on writing quarterly reports. This isn’t like a traditional venture agreement where lead investors can take seats on a board of directors and hold power over the future direction of a company. Furst says he’s OK with that.

“My investments are with the people I already know and have great relationships with,” he said. “I’m personally very adamant about the issue of trust. That’s why this isn’t a 50-page contract. That would underscore the ridiculousness of controlling something that’s uncontrollable. If the participants don’t trust each other to work together and cooperate, it won’t work at all.”

Next Story:
Previous Story:

Tags: ,

Companies:

People: , ,




Photo of Kim-Mai Cutler

About the Author, Kim-Mai Cutler

Kim-Mai was born and raised a stone's throw from Apple headquarters in Cupertino by a devout Hewlett-Packard family. After attending UC Berkeley, Kim-Mai worked for Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones Newswires in New York, Los Angeles, London and Buenos Aires. Follow her on Twitter at @kimmaicutler or send her an e-mail here.

  • Furst and his partner Phil Gordon is fascinated by this Agreement to apply in the real world of talented people early in their careers.
  • PurchaseTramadol
    It's so lucky for me to find your blog!Simple language, concise blog! Another style! I like!Thank you for sharing ! Buy amoxicillin Buy allegra Buy alesse.
  • sweller
    This reads like a variation on indentured servitude.

  • Skeptical
    None of the comments here have really touched on the one potentially horrific aspect in these types of schemes. Since the investor in the individual is going "long" on the individual, there is also the potential for someone to have a derivative of that investment and go "short". And, taken to its logical extreme, then there is incentive for someone to impair the earnings potential of the "investment" (i.e. physical harm or impairment). Not a pretty picture ...

    Wall Street firms are currently doing something that is somewhat similar -- buying up people's life insurance policies for an up front cost, then selling them to other investors who pay the premiums. They go to great lengths to anonymize and tranche the policies so they can't be traced back to the owner, for obvious reasons (policyholder dies early, investor wins). Here, there's no such protection -- the "investment" is identified for all to see ... in fact, they need to be identified to show their Investment-worthiness.

    Far-fetched? When it comes to money and investment gains, I wouldn't put anything by anyone out there. Just another reason to make sure people don't confuse the concept of "individual" and "corporation" (don't get started on the whole campaign finance Supreme Court decision).
  • witold
    Terrible deal for the investor. Great deal for the 'indentured servant' because they get to choose how much to work. The issue is that the more money you have in the bank, the less incentive you have to make money. Also, the more taxes or 'dividends' you have to pay out the less incentive you have to make money.

    Erickson - Don't be stupid and give the money away. Move to Thailand/India/etc., live on the interest, and volunteer to do good for the world. Also, you should have sold more!
  • Vic
    Obviously, this is illegal and stupid (from any investor's perspective). The only way any investor would pay $600,000 for 6% of her future salary is if he is a sleazeball interested in face time with a hot young girl.
  • hostilewordrat
    This is life imitating art. Has anyone else here read The Unincorporated Man by the Dani and Eytan Kollin?

    "A brilliant industrialist named Justin Cord awakes from a 300-year cryonic suspension into a world that has accepted an extreme form of market capitalism. It's a world in which humans themselves have become incorporated and most people no longer own a majority of themselves."

    !
  • brezina
    nice write-up Kim, but anyone with experience in funding a company through equity financing would never put their personal equity into an agreement like this. And I wouldn't fund someone who is as fiscally irresponsible with their personal finances.

    Companies are much bigger than the entrepreneurs that start them. Say this woman sells 6% of her earnings to get $600k for her C corp. The C corp could literally turn around and fire her with very little consequence (except maybe some stock acceleration and severance). Then what? She has traded 6% of her future earnings and she doesn't even have a job at the company she started and limited upside in the venture she started. Super risky.

    This is why we have corporations. To separate personal and corporate responsibility. Doing something like they are suggesting is as crazy as repealing the separation of church & state.
  • This probably isn't a solution for areas with strong existing capital channels such as technology. Erickson's choices are probably between philanthropic donations, which aren't fungible, and traditional loans, which leave her with a lot of downside if she fails. I might think of it as patronage with upside.
  • brezina
    Oh, nice, "patronage with upside." I like that.

    My capitalist brain can't wrap itself around any other logical explanation :)
  • Whoops, clicked the wrong button at first.

    Matt I think the difference is that this is meant for a nonprofit venture instead of a for-profit one. The main reason behind raising the investment is that getting enough seed capital to make your non-profit venture sustainable is (currently) far more challenging than in the for profit sector so people are looking for alternate models. In this scenario getting fired from the non profit doesn't really affect her future earnings at all since there's not much salary (and no upside) to be lost.

    On the other hand if raising that money can help make the venture sustainable (e.g. by hiring a full time staffer to raise future money) the entrepreneur can move on to other things which is far more difficult in the non profit space because a lot of organizations are so cash strapped that they need the founder working for below market rates to survive. This approach really says more about the terrible funding environment for enterprising non profits than anything else.
  • Great article, especially tying Furst's story and the meme of poker sponsorship to this. As I wrote at http://blog.dylansalisbury.com/2010/03/04/what-would-it-take-for-me-to-own-1-percent-of-you/ I think the future is with Furst's style of family and trust relationships, not with arms length contracts. Ms. Cutler, look for other parallels between poker investments and silicon valley angels and entrepreneurship!
  • Ryan
    Terrible! Somebody completely missed what “invest in people" means. This sounds more like a marketplace of desperation. Is that really the place to match investors and entrepreneurs? Yuck.
  • Equity = ownership. Ownership of a person = slavery. And slavery is illegal. What if you sold 100% instead of 6% of your future earnings? First, this idea of selling a % of your future earnings isn't even remotely new, and second it's probably illegal or eventually will be clearly made illegal. Just my 2 cents.
  • suresh
    thats called marriage :)
  • Haha - that hits close to home because I just got engaged. Thanks for that analogy!
  • Aaron
    Great idea.

    With income and wealth, there is a lot of "generational risk". Your future self is typically much richer than your present one. It makes a lot of sense to take out a massive loan now and pay it off in the future. In the meantime you can enjoy life by traveling more, starting companies, etc.

    In both cases cited, the investors are getting pretty bad deals. As an individual, I'd be willing to take much worse deals -- if only it was easy to sign up.
  • I call this "Indenture Capital" -- I've been predicting it for years. Yale University did an experiment with this a while back where they gave scholarships for percentages of lifetime net worth -- don't know what happened with that idea.It could still be a good idea, if there is a reasonable buyout clause. I guess the tricky part is how exactly is this debt secured? If the person can't pay up, do they have to start giving their first-born too...?
  • scottdolson1
    Lifetime debt? No thanks. This is a bad idea for the individual and a bad idea for the investor.
  • I think I have to make this clearer. It's not really lifetime debt. You're selling equity in yourself. If you make it big, the amount you pay back will be larger. But if you don't, 1 or 2 percent of your annual income is nominal.
  • Lee
    I would say selling yourself into slavery is not a good idea.
  • jeffphenderson
    This is such a bad idea, I don't know where to begin! You are essentially mortgaging your future, until you die! You become an indentured servant for life to whomever lends you money with this deal. Sort of like selling your soul to the devil.
  • docdeb56
    Sort of like student loans!! The feds own me for two lifetimes!
  • jeffphenderson
    It's worse. At least you know how much you owe for your student loans. With this deal it could be open ended.
blog comments powered by Disqus