Category: UNCATEGORIZED

21 Jul 2020

Elon Musk is one board approval away from another $2.1 billion in stock options

Tesla’s six-month average trailing market capitalization hit $150 billion on Tuesday after a four-month run up of the automaker’s share price that theoretically unlocks a multibillion-dollar vesting option for CEO Elon Musk.

Once Tesla hit the six-month average trailing market cap of $150 billion, which Reuters first reported, Musk became eligible to access the second of 12 levels of options granted to him in an unprecedented pay package approved by shareholders in 2018. The board must still certify the milestone before the vesting option is triggered.

The milestone was met the day before Tesla is scheduled to report its second-quarter earnings.

The compensation plan consists of 20.3 million stock option awards broken up into 12 tranches of 1.69 million shares. These options will vest in increments if Tesla hits specific milestones on market cap, revenue and adjusted earnings (excluding certain one-time charges such as stock compensation). Once the board certifies each milestone, Musk is able to buy the 1.69 million shares at a steeply discounted price of $350.02 per share.

Based on today’s share price of $1,568.36, Musk could then sell 1.69 million shares for about $2.1 billion. Keep in mind, that Tesla’s board certified in May the first milestone, which unlocked the first tranche. So, combined, Musk would theoretically profit about $4.2 billion, based on today’s share price. However, there is an important caveat to all of this. Musk must hold any shares that he acquires upon exercise of the 2018 CEO performance award for at least five years post-exercise.

Musk has yet to exercise any of these options, according to SEC filings.

To access the first tranche of stock options, Tesla’s market value had to reach a six-month average of $100.2 billion and either $20 billion in annual revenue or $1.5 billion in adjusted EBITDA. To meet the next milestone, Tesla’s market cap had to increase another $50 billion in value and $35 billion in revenue or $3 billion in adjusted EBITDA.

To qualify for the third tranche, Tesla’s market value must reach a six-month average of $200 billion and either $55 billion in revenue or $4.5 billion in adjusted EBITDA.

21 Jul 2020

Bangladesh regulator orders telcos to stop providing free access to social media

Bangladesh’s regulator has ordered telecom operators and other internet providers in the nation to stop providing free access to social media services, becoming the latest market in Asia to take a partial stand against zero-rating deals.

Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, the local regulator, said late last week that it had moved to take this decision because free usage of social media services had spurred their misuse by some people to commit crimes. Local outlet Business Standard first reported about the development. Bangladesh is one of the largest internet markets in Asia with more than 100 million online users.

Technology companies such as Facebook and Twitter have struck partnerships, more popularly known as zero rating deals, with telecom operators and other internet providers in several markets in the past decade to make their services free to users to accelerate growth. Typically, tech companies bankroll the cost of data consumption of users as part of these deals.

In Bangladesh, such zero rating deals have been popular for several years, said Ahad, chief executive of Bongo, an on-demand streaming service, in an interview with TechCrunch.

Grameenphone and Robi Axiata, two of the largest telecom operators in Bangladesh, enable their mobile subscribers to access a handful of services of their partners even when their phones have run out of credit. Both telecom firms have said they are in the process to comply with Dhaka’s order.

It remains unclear whether Free Basics, a program run by Facebook in dozens of markets through which it offers unlimited access to select services at no cost, will continue its presence in Bangladesh after the nation’s order. Facebook relies on telecom networks to offer data access for its Free Basics program.

In Bangladesh, Facebook struck deals with Grameenphone and Robi Axiata, according to its official website, where Facebook continues to identify Bangladesh among dozens of markets where Free Basics is operational.

Several nations in recent years have balked at zero rating arrangements — though they have often cited different reasons. India banned Free Basics in early 2016 on the grounds that Facebook’s initiative was violating the principles of net neutrality.

Free Basics also ended its program in Myanmar and several other markets in 2017 and 2018. Facebook did not respond to requests for comment.

21 Jul 2020

Nielsen is revamping the way it measures digital audiences

Audience measurement company Nielsen announced today that that it plans to change the methodology behind its digital products, including Digital Content Ratings, Total Content Ratings, Digital in TV Ratings, Digital Ad Ratings and Total Ad Ratings.

The company plans to start rolling out the new methodology in phases in 2021. It isn’t sharing the full details yet, but the goal is to respond to the ways that regulation, platform shifts and other factors are changing landscape for user privacy and data collection (for example the growing browser practice of blocking third-party cookies).

“In the next chapter — even in the current chapter — moving data around is not easy anymore,” Chief Operating Officer Karthik Rao told me. “It takes a talent base, it takes skills, it takes technology, it takes partnering with the right cloud partners.”

Rao suggested that Nielsen is uniquely suited to adapting to this new, more privacy-centric world, partly because of the company’s historic roots in collecting data through consumer panels, which he said are “the most privacy compliant way” to gain “the most robust understanding” of audience and consumer behavior.

“Our ability to understand media behaviors is unparalleled,” he said.

Rao added that Nielsen’s new methodologies will place an additional emphasis on the portability of data and data models, as well as on de-duplicating audiences, so that the firm isn’t inadvertently counting the same people on different platforms.

“I can’t stress enough the need for de-duplication in the industry,” he said. “We wake up thinking about it, it’s the [company’s] new mantra. It’s existed for a long time, but it’s a really important mantra in this evolution, and beyond as well.”

21 Jul 2020

Shelf Engine has a plan to reduce food waste at grocery stores, and $12 million in new cash to see i

For the first few months it was operating, Shelf Engine, the Seattle-based company that optimizes the process of stocking store shelves for supermarkets and groceries, didn’t have a name.

Co-founders Stefan Kalb and Bede Jordan were on a ski trip outside of Salt Lake City about four years ago when they began discussing what, exactly, could be done about the problem of food waste in the US.

Kalb is a serial entrepreneur whose first business was a food distribution company called Molly’s, which was sold to a company called HomeGrown back in 2019.

A graduate of Western Washington University with a degree in actuarial science, Kalb says he started his food company to make a difference in the world. While Molly’s did, indeed, promote healthy eating, the problem that Kalb and Bede, a former Microsoft engineer, are tackling at Shelf Engine may have even more of an impact.

Food waste isn’t just bad for its inefficiency in the face of a massive problem in the US with food insecurity for citizens, it’s also bad for the environment.

Shelf Engine proposes to tackle the problem by providing demand forecasting for perishable food items. The idea is to wring inefficiencies out of the ordering system. Typically about a third of food gets thrown out of the bakery section and other highly perishable goods stocked on store shelves. Shelf Engine guarantees use for the store and any items that remain unsold the company will pay for.

Image: OstapenkoOlena/iStock

Shelf Engine gets information about how much sales a store typically sees for particular items and can then predict how much demand for a particular product there will be. The company makes money off of the arbitrage between how much it pays for goods from vendors and how much it sells to grocers.

It allows groceries to lower the food waste and have a broader variety of products on shelves for customers.

Shelf Engine initially went to market with a product that it was hoping to sell to groceries, but found more traction by becoming a marketplace and perfecting its models on how much of a particular item needs to go on store shelves.

The next item on the agenda for Bede and Kalb is to get insights into secondary sources like imperfect produce resellers or other grocery stores that work as an outlet.

The business model is already showing results at around 400 stores in the Northwest, according to Kalb and it now has another $12 million in financing to go to market.

The funds came from Garry Tan’s Initialized and GGV (and GGV managing director Hans Tung has a seat on the company’s board). Other investors in the company include Foundation Capital, Bain Capital, 1984 and Correlation Ventures .

Kalb said the money from the round will be used to scale up the engineering team and its sales and acquisition process.

The investment in Shelf Engine is part of a wave of new technology applications coming to the grocery store, as Sunny Dhillon, a partner at Signia Ventures, wrote in a piece for TechCrunch’s Extra Crunch.

“Grocery margins will always be razor thin, and the difference between a profitable and unprofitable grocer is often just cents on the dollar,” Dhillon wrote. “Thus, as the adoption of e-grocery becomes more commonplace, retailers must not only optimize their fulfillment operations (e.g, MFCs), but also the logistics of delivery to a customer’s doorstep to ensure speed and quality (e.g., darkstores).”

Beyond Dhillon’s version of a delivery only grocery network with mobile fulfillment centers and dark stores, there’s a lot of room for chains with existing real estate and bespoke shopping options to increase their margins on perishable goods as well.

 

21 Jul 2020

Five ways to bring a UX lens to your AI project

As AI and machine-learning tools become more pervasive and accessible, product and engineering teams across all types of organizations are developing innovative, AI-powered products and features. AI is particularly well-suited for pattern recognition, prediction and forecasting, and the personalization of user experience, all of which are common in organizations that deal with data.

A precursor to applying AI is data — lots and lots of it! Large data sets are generally required to train an AI model, and any organization that has large data sets will no doubt face challenges that AI can help solve. Alternatively, data collection may be “phase one” of AI product development if data sets don’t yet exist.

Whatever data sets you’re planning to use, it’s highly likely that people were involved in either the capture of that data or will be engaging with your AI feature in some way. Principles for UX design and data visualization should be an early consideration at data capture, and/or in the presentation of data to users.

1. Consider the user experience early

Understanding how users will engage with your AI product at the start of model development can help to put useful guardrails on your AI project and ensure the team is focused on a shared end goal.

If we take the ‘”Recommended for You” section of a movie streaming service, for example, outlining what the user will see in this feature before kicking off data analysis will allow the team to focus only on model outputs that will add value. So if your user research determined the movie title, image, actors and length will be valuable information for the user to see in the recommendation, the engineering team would have important context when deciding which data sets should train the model. Actor and movie length data seem key to ensuring recommendations are accurate.

The user experience can be broken down into three parts:

  • Before — What is the user trying to achieve? How does the user arrive at this experience? Where do they go? What should they expect?
  • During — What should they see to orient themselves? Is it clear what to do next? How are they guided through errors?
  • After — Did the user achieve their goal? Is there a clear “end” to the experience? What are the follow-up steps (if any)?

Knowing what a user should see before, during and after interacting with your model will ensure the engineering team is training the AI model on accurate data from the start, as well as providing an output that is most useful to users.

2. Be transparent about how you’re using data

Will your users know what is happening to the data you’re collecting from them, and why you need it? Would your users need to read pages of your T&Cs to get a hint? Think about adding the rationale into the product itself. A simple “this data will allow us to recommend better content” could remove friction points from the user experience, and add a layer of transparency to the experience.

When users reach out for support from a counselor at The Trevor Project, we make it clear that the information we ask for before connecting them with a counselor will be used to give them better support.

If your model presents outputs to users, go a step further and explain how your model came to its conclusion. Google’s “Why this ad?” option gives you insight into what drives the search results you see. It also lets you disable ad personalization completely, allowing the user to control how their personal information is used. Explaining how your model works or its level of accuracy can increase trust in your user base, and empower users to decide on their own terms whether to engage with the result. Low accuracy levels could also be used as a prompt to collect additional insights from users to improve your model.

3. Collect user insights on how your model performs

Prompting users to give feedback on their experience allows the Product team to make ongoing improvements to the user experience over time. When thinking about feedback collection, consider how the AI engineering team could benefit from ongoing user feedback, too. Sometimes humans can spot obvious errors that AI wouldn’t, and your user base is made up exclusively of humans!

One example of user feedback collection in action is when Google identifies an email as dangerous, but allows the user to use their own logic to flag the email as “Safe.” This ongoing, manual user correction allows the model to continuously learn what dangerous messaging looks like over time.

Image Credits: Google

If your user base also has the contextual knowledge to explain why the AI is incorrect, this context could be crucial to improving the model. If a user notices an anomaly in the results returned by the AI, think of how you could include a way for the user to easily report the anomaly. What question(s) could you ask a user to garner key insights for the engineering team, and to provide useful signals to improve the model? Engineering teams and UX designers can work together during model development to plan for feedback collection early on and set the model up for ongoing iterative improvement.

4. Evaluate accessibility when collecting user data

Accessibility issues result in skewed data collection, and AI that is trained on exclusionary data sets can create AI bias. For instance, facial recognition algorithms that were trained on a data set consisting mostly of white male faces will perform poorly for anyone who is not white or male. For organizations like The Trevor Project that directly support LGBTQ youth, including considerations for sexual orientation and gender identity are extremely important. Looking for inclusive data sets externally is just as important as ensuring the data you bring to the table, or intend to collect, is inclusive.

When collecting user data, consider the platform your users will leverage to interact with your AI, and how you could make it more accessible. If your platform requires payment, does not meet accessibility guidelines or has a particularly cumbersome user experience, you will receive fewer signals from those who cannot afford the subscription, have accessibility needs or are less tech-savvy.

Every product leader and AI engineer has the ability to ensure marginalized and underrepresented groups in society can access the products they’re building. Understanding who you are unconsciously excluding from your data set is the first step in building more inclusive AI products.

5. Consider how you will measure fairness at the start of model development

Fairness goes hand-in-hand with ensuring your training data is inclusive. Measuring fairness in a model requires you to understand how your model may be less fair in certain use cases. For models using people data, looking at how the model performs across different demographics can be a good start. However, if your data set does not include demographic information, this type of fairness analysis could be impossible.

When designing your model, think about how the output could be skewed by your data, or how it could underserve certain people. Ensure the data sets you use to train, and the data you’re collecting from users, are rich enough to measure fairness. Consider how you will monitor fairness as part of regular model maintenance. Set a fairness threshold, and create a plan for how you would adjust or retrain the model if it becomes less fair over time.

As a new or seasoned technology worker developing AI-powered tools, it’s never too early or too late to consider how your tools are perceived by and impact your users. AI technology has the potential to reach millions of users at scale and can be applied in high-stakes use cases. Considering the user experience holistically — including how the AI output will impact people — is not only best-practice but can be an ethical necessity.

21 Jul 2020

NBCU’s Peacock streaming service hits 1.5M app downloads in first 6 days

NBCU’s Peacock appears to be having a somewhat better launch than Quibi did, based on data from app store intelligence firm Sensor Tower. While numbers pointing to new app downloads aren’t a complete picture of consumer adoption for a cross-platform service, they can provide a window into early traction outside of any official numbers provided by the companies themselves.

In Peacock’s case, Sensor Tower says the mobile app has now been downloaded around 1.5 million times across the U.S. App Store and Google Play within its first 6 days on the market.

For comparison, that’s 25% more than the 1.2 million installs Quibi saw during the same period post-launch in the U.S., but only 12% of the 13 million downloads Disney+ generated within its first 6 days.

Sensor Tower chose not to compare Peacock with HBO Max due to the fact that HBO’s new service replaced the existing HBO Now app, which was already pre-installed on consumer devices. That would not be as apt a comparison.

Peacock, of course, doesn’t have the brand-name recognition of Disney. And arguably, its name doesn’t translate into consumers’ minds as “NBC,” despite its connection to the classic peacock logo. Disney, meanwhile, had a built-in fan base before its streaming service’s launch. And, more broadly, there was pent-up consumer demand for a more family-friendly offering, as well.

Before last week’s launch, Peacock had been available on parent company Comcast’s Xfinity X1 and Flex platforms, but that didn’t include its mobile companion. The mobile app instead officially launched on July 15, and quickly shot up to No. 1 on the iPhone App Store, where it remained through the following day. On iPad, it ranked No. 1 between July 16 and July 18.

Today, the app has since dropped to No. 26 on iPhone (among non-game apps). Meanwhile, on Google Play, it has ranked No. 2 since July 17, and is No. 1 among non-game apps.

Quibi had also seen early traction on the app stores’ top charts shortly after its launch, ranking as high as No. 4 on iPhone on its launch day, April 6. But just over a week later it had rapidly fallen out of the U.S. iPhone app rankings, App Annie’s data indicated, dropping out of the top 50. That saw it coming in behind Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, and Amazon Prime Video.

Peacock hasn’t yet fallen that far, which could be a good signal.

There was also much discussion that Quibi’s failure to gain significant early traction had to do with its lack of support for TV viewing, despite launching in the middle of a pandemic when users were staying at home and watching on their living room big screens.

However, it’s worth pointing out that Peacock hasn’t yet rolled out to the two most widely-adopted living room platforms in the U.S.: Amazon Fire TV and Roku. That lends more support to the idea that Quibi hasn’t been struggling to grow because of its mobile-only nature, but because its content wasn’t drawing in viewers.

For what it’s worth, Quibi has disputed recent reports of its slow traction, noting earlier this month its app had gained 5.6 million downloads since launch — more than the 4.5 million Sensor Tower had claimed at the time.

Even if Sensor Tower’s estimates aren’t an exact science, the overall trend its figures paint is one of where neither Peacock nor Quibi have become overnight sensations at launch. Of course, the growth trajectory for any Netflix rival is sure to be tough in today’s crowded market. But these companies have made it even more difficult for consumers to connect due to their lack of a recognizable brand name and their failure to offer dedicated apps for top living room devices at launch.

21 Jul 2020

Diaspora Ventures wants to invest in French founders with a global mindset

Meet Diaspora Ventures, a new VC fund based in the U.S. founded by two partners who grew up in France but have been in the U.S. for more than a decade — Ilan Abehassera (pictured right) and Carlos Diaz (pictured left). As the name suggests, Diaspora Ventures wants to invest in the French diaspora, and especially French founders who want to create a startup in the U.S. from the early days of their companies.

The fund’s website lays out this investment thesis in just a few sentences. “We are convinced that France is full of talented and ambitious entrepreneurs and is home of some of the best engineers and product designers in the world. We have realized that most of the time, they do not have the opportunity to expand beyond their borders because they don’t have access to the right funding, talent pool, playbooks or network,” the website reads.

Ilan Abehassera has been an entrepreneur for a while. He first founded Producteed, a task-management product that has been acquired by software giant Jive in 2012.

He later launched Ily, a family-friendly communication device. The device looks an awful lot like an Amazon Echo Show, but the device was announced a couple of years before Amazon took over this market. He’w now working on Willo, a robot that could replace your toothbrush

Carlos Diaz co-founded Carlos Diaz, a European digital agency that was acquired by Atos. More recently, he’s been working on The Refiners, a San Francisco-based seed fund that helps international founders get started in Silicon Valley. In March, Diaz was in the process of raising a second fund for The Refiners but couldn’t close the deal.

“The original idea of The Refiners was to identify ambitious European startups willing to move to the U.S. and help them become global leaders in their category. The global pandemic, the economic uncertainty combined with travel restrictions, and the absurd immigration policies of the Trump administration suddenly made the investment thesis of The Refiners impossible to execute four years after its launch,” Diaz wrote in a blog post.

With Diaspora Ventures, Diaz and Abehassera want to differentiate themselves from French VC funds that already invest in the U.S. According to Diaz, working with a French fund in the U.S. requires a lot of back and forth to close a deal. Diaspora Ventures wants to be able to close deals more quickly.

Diaspora Ventures will focus on early stage rounds with an average check between $100,000 and $200,000. The firm wants to participate in 10 to 20 deals per year.

Interestingly, Diaspora Ventures is taking advantage of AngelList’s Rolling Venture Funds. It means that the two partners have raised $3 million from various limited partners, such as Kima Ventures, Breega, Alexis Bonillo, Christophe Courtin, Salomon Aiach, Frédéric Laluyaux and others. But the fund is always raising, so the list will become longer and the total amount of capital raised will grow over time.

That’s how Diaspora Ventures managed to close their first investment deal just a couple of months after coming up with the idea for the new fund.

Both of them have also been active angel investors over the past few years. They have invested in some well-known names, such as Algolia, Sunrise, Tempow, Yolo, Double, Cowboy, etc.

Image Credits: Diaspora Ventures

21 Jul 2020

Edtech startups flirt with unicorn-style growth

When Quizlet became a unicorn earlier this year, CEO Matthew Glotzbach said he’d prefer to distance the company from the common nomenclature for a startup valued at or above $1 billion.

“The way Quizlet has gotten to this point is by building and growing a very responsible business,” he said. “It’s the result of the hard work of the team for a decade. We’re much more like a camel.”

It’s clear, though, that the tides might be changing. In edtech, the rich are getting richer. Last week, Mountain View-based Coursera announced it had raised a $130 million Series F round a day after The Information broke a story about Udemy reportedly raising new financing at a $3 billion valuation.

For anyone who has been following my edtech coverage in recent few months, this momentum is hardly surprising. Earlier in the pandemic, MasterClass raised $100 million, Quizlet became a unicorn and Byju’s became India’s second-most-valuable startup.

While edtech’s boom is predictable, the industry is known — to the chagrin of founders and to the benefit of long-time investors — for being conservative. Today we’ll look to understand how a boost in late-stage funding may impact the market on a broader scale.

High-flying camels

Ian Chiu, an investor at Owl Ventures, tells TechCrunch that the rise of big rounds brings a “watershed moment” to the $6 trillion education market. Owl Ventures was founded in 2014 and is one of the biggest edtech-focused firms out there, but Chiu says the recent strong capital flow shows that the sector is finally emerging as a sector other investors are noticing.

21 Jul 2020

Creating a robust churn-reversal system

We’ve aggregated many of the world’s best growth marketers into one community. Twice a month, we ask them to share their most effective growth tactics, and we compile them into this Growth Report.

This is how you stay up-to-date on growth marketing tactics — with advice that’s hard to find elsewhere.

Our community consists of startup founders and heads of growth. You can participate by joining Demand Curve’s marketing training program or its Slack group.

Without further ado, on to our community’s advice.


Creating a robust churn-reversal system

Insights from Matthew Morley of Savvy

Generally, it’s far more efficient to keep a current client than it is to close a new one. You’ll want a system to help you identify which users are at risk of churning. This way, you can proactively reach out to them before they leave.

Start by identifying your high-value customers at risk of churning:

Who is:

  • Spending within the top 10% of time using your app?
  • Has a substantial number of seats of your product?
  • Or, say, has a company size of at least 50 people — reflecting their upselling potential?

But also:

  • Is using the product 30% less in a given month
  • Has submitted at least one non-trivial support ticket in the last month
  • And has their subscription renew in less than 90 days

And so on.

You can stitch this information together from multiple sources like Stripe, Mixpanel, Crunchbase and Intercom. Then, set up an alert to notify your team once someone falls into these buckets.

Then reach out with something personal to win back their enthusiasm. It can be high leverage to get them on the phone to uncover what’s keeping them around.

21 Jul 2020

Is your net worth too closely tied to your company’s success?

Now that I’ve offered an overview to help you think through where concentrated stock sits in your overall plan, let’s take a closer look at why selling can be challenging for some.

In the following section, I reveal the facts of the concentrated stock “get rich” myths that reside in the minds of many first-time concentrated stock owners, and I show why it is prudent to consider greater diversification.

Keep reading to learn more about the benefits of diversification, discover how much company stock is likely too much to hold, and the options you have when it comes to diversifying strategically.

Dangers of concentration

There are several hard facts to keep in mind in contemplating maintaining a concentrated position:

  1. It’s stating the obvious, but not all stocks are AAPL or AMZN. Hendrik Bessembinder published research that found the best performing 4% of listed companies explained the returns for the entire U.S. stock market since 1926. The remaining 96% of stocks collectively matched the performance of U.S. Treasury bills. Since 1926, 58% of stocks have failed to beat one-month Treasury bills over their lifetimes. Forty percent of all Russell 3000 (an index of the 3000 largest publicly traded companies in the U.S.) have lost at least 70% of their value from their peak since 1980.
  2. Despite all this, broad-based equities have returned 9%+ a year, beating most other asset classes, ultimately due to the top 4% of stocks. Although there is no guarantee anyone can single out any of the top 4% going forward, diversification will guarantee you will own the top 4%.
  3. Even if the concentrated stock you own will be another AAPL/AMZN, both stocks have experienced declines of 90%+ at some point throughout their lifetimes. Most investors would not be able to have conviction and stay invested, especially if that concentrated stock was driving the majority of their portfolio returns and net worth. Sometimes catastrophic declines are a function of the industry or existential threats that have little to do with the company itself. Other times, it has everything to do with the company and nothing to do with external factors.

The odds of any new IPO being among the top 4% is just slightly better than hitting your lucky number on the roulette wheel. But is your investment portfolio success and the odds of achieving your long-term financial goals something you want to spin the wheel on?

Benefits of diversification

Excess volatility can harm returns. Note the example below that shows the comparison between a low-volatility diversified portfolio versus a high-volatility concentrated portfolio. Despite the same simple average return, the low-volatility portfolio below materially outperforms the high-volatility portfolio.

Image Credits: Peyton Carr

Beyond the math, unexpected spikes in volatility can cause significant price declines. Volatility increases the chances that an investor reacts emotionally and makes a poor investment decision. I’ll cover the behavioral finance aspect of this later. Lowering your portfolio volatility can be as simple as increasing your portfolio diversification.

The Russell 3000, an index representing the 3,000 largest U.S.-based publicly traded companies, has lower volatility when compared against 95%+ of all single stocks. So, how much return do you give up for having lower volatility?

According to Northern Trust Research, the 5.96% annualized average return of the Russell 3000 is 0.73% more than the 5.23% return of the median stock. Additionally, owning the Russell 3000, rather than a single stock, eliminates the likelihood of catastrophic loss scenarios — more than 20% of shares averaged a loss of more than 10% per year over a 20-year time frame.

If this establishes that the avoidance of overly concentrated portfolios is important, how much stock is too much? And at what price should you sell?

How much of your company’s stock is too much?

We consider any stock position or exposure greater than 10% of a portfolio to be a concentrated position. There is no hard number, but the appropriate level of concentration is dependent on several factors, such as your liquidity needs, overall portfolio value, the appetite for risk and the longer-term financial plan. However, above 10% and the returns and volatility of that single position can begin to dominate the portfolio, exposing you to high degrees of portfolio volatility.

The company “stock” in your portfolio often is only a fraction of your overall financial exposure to your company. Think about your other sources of possible exposure such as restricted stock, RSUs, options, employee stock purchase programs, 401k, other equity compensation plans, as well as your current and future salary stream tied to the company’s success. In most cases, the prudent path to achieving your financial goals involves a well-diversified portfolio.

What’s stopping you?

Facts aside, maintaining a concentrated position in your company stock is far more tempting than taking a more measured approach. Token examples like Zuckerberg and Bezos tend to outshine the dull rationale of reality, and it’s hard to argue against the possibility of becoming fabulously wealthy by betting on yourself. In other words, your emotions can get the best of you.

But your goals — not your emotions — should be driving your investment strategy and decisions regarding your stock. Your investment portfolio and the company stock(s) within it should be used as tools to achieve those goals.

So first, we’ll take a deep dive into the behavioral psychology that influences our decision-making.

Despite all the evidence, sometimes that little voice remains.

I want to hold the stock.

Why is it so hard to shake? This is a natural human tendency. I get it. We have a strong impetus to rationalize our biases and not believe we are vulnerable to being influenced by them.

Becoming attached to your company is common, since after all, that stock has made you, or has the potential of making you wealthy. More often than not, selling and diversifying is the tough, but more rational decision.

Numerous studies have furnished insights into the correlation between investing and psychology. Many unrecognized psychological barriers and behavioral biases can influence you to hold concentrated stock even when the data shows that you should not.

Understanding these biases can be helpful when deciding what to do with your stock. These behavioral biases are hard to spot and even harder to overcome. However, awareness is the first step. Here are a few more common behavioral biases, see if any apply to you:

Familiarity bias: Familiarity is likely why so many founders are willing to hold concentrated positions in their own company’s stock. It is easy to confuse the familiarity with your own company with the safety in the stock. In the stock market, familiarity and safety are not always related. A great (safe) company sometimes can have a dangerously overvalued stock price, and terrible companies sometimes have terrifically undervalued stock prices. It’s not just about the quality of the company but the relationship between the quality of a company and its stock price that dictates whether a stock is likely to perform well in the future.

Another way this manifests is when a founder has less experience with stock market investing and has only owned their company stock. They may think the market has more risk than their company when in actuality, it is usually safer than holding just their individual position.

Overconfidence: Every investor is exhibiting overconfidence when they hold an overly concentrated position in an individual stock. Founders are likely to believe in their company; after all, it already achieved enough success to IPO. This confidence can be misplaced in the stock. Founders often are reluctant to sell their stock if it has been going up since they believe it will continue to go up. If the stock has sold off, the opposite is true, and they are convinced it will recover. Often, it is challenging for founders to be objective when they are so close to the company. They commonly believe that they have unique information and know the “true” value of the stock.

Anchoring: Some investors will anchor their beliefs to something they experienced in the past. If the price of the concentrated stock is down, investors may anchor their belief that the stock is worth its recent previous higher value and be unwilling to sell. This previous value of the stock is not an indicator of its real value. The real value is the current price where buyers and sellers exchange the stock while incorporating all presently available information.

Endowment effect: Many investors tend to place a higher value on an asset they currently own than if they did not own it at all. It makes it harder to sell. An excellent way to check for the endowment effect is to ask yourself: “If I did not own these shares, would I purchase them today at this price?” If you are not willing to purchase the shares at this price today, it likely means you are only holding onto the shares because of the endowment effect.

A fun spin on this is to look into the IKEA effect study, which demonstrates that people assign more value to something that they made than it is potentially worth.

When framed this way, investors can make more intentional decisions on whether to continue holding concentrated stock or selling. At times, these biases are hard to spot, which is why having a second person, a co-pilot, or an advisor, is helpful.

Take control

Congratulations to those of you with a concentrated stock position in your company; it is hard-earned and likely represents a material wealth. Understand, there is no “right” answer when it comes to managing concentrated stock. Each situation is unique, so it is essential to speak with a professional about options specific to your situation.

It starts with having a financial plan, complete with specific investment goals that you want to achieve. Once you have a clear picture of what you want to accomplish, you can look at the facts in a new light and gain a deeper appreciation for the dangers of holding a concentrated position in company stock versus the benefits of diversification, considering all of the implications and opportunities involved in rational decision-making and investment behavior.

What are my choices if I want to diversify?

Most individuals understand they can simply and directly sell their equity, but there are a variety of other strategies. Some of these opportunities may be far better at minimizing taxes or better at achieving the desired risk or return profile. Some might wonder what the best timing is to sell. I will cover these topics in the final article of the series.