why don't you use your ownership income to hire someone to replace you? that way, you won't have to sell your stake at a price you don't like, someone can still be doing the necessary work you won't be doing, and you'll still have a passive income stream.
I just need this off my plate. Even when the workload is light my partner doesn't like the idea that my concentration isn't fully directed at our business. We've had many open conversations on the matter and we both agreed it would be a good idea if he bought me out.
If he was interested in doing something else, then we could set this up as a passive income generator, but he's not interested in that
He'd still have to be active on the board, and make sure his partner doesn't run the business into the ground.. e.g. by hiring someone to do his job, and go live of his passive income stream :)
Except what the other partner thinks about you leaving, while still holding significant stake in the company. This is perfectly acceptable if you're Paul Allen escaping Microsoft after it goes public. But expecting a partner to work full-time, while you outsource (or just stop taking part) and maintain ownership, is a way to lose friends and get into legal trouble down the line.
Vesting schedules are designed to help prevent situations like that, among other things.
I assume that even without actually hiring someone to replace you directly, you could differentiate between salary & dividends. Then you continue to pay the salary to the remaining founder & any replacing employee & split the dividends. I guess the remaining founder would receive gradual increase to his equity share as part of his package.
BTW, wouldn't most vesting schedules have already left this founder with quote a bit of equity (2.5 years)?
I assume that even without actually hiring someone to replace you directly, you could differentiate between salary & dividends. Then you continue to pay the salary to the remaining founder & any replacing employee & split the dividends. I guess the remaining founder would receive gradual increase to his equity share as part of his package.
Yep. That would probably cover it. Though, my thinking in this case is that in a partnership of two people, if one leaves it's probably going to hurt the company in the short term. There's just a lot of loose ends to tie up...and as others have mentioned, being free of the whole thing may be more valuable (because let's face it, a 100k annual revenue
company isn't going to make him rich--unless it grows dramatically, which would generally mean the other found did some kick ass work without the other holding him back). If he's feeling the urge to do something completely different, there's a lot of good arguments for doing just that.
BTW, wouldn't most vesting schedules have already left this founder with quote a bit of equity (2.5 years)?
Yes. And a board seat and the responsibilities that go along with that.
But, every case is different. Nobody here can tell someone else what will make them happy.
just my uninformed $0.02.