Short answer:
Not in all cases. It comes down to logic. How significant is the market for this company's stock? Is it enough to really show there is a market? Or that there is a clear value? Probably not, unless it is a company-sponsored sale or a Facebook-type frenzy. But companies do use this as an excuse to prohibit secondary sales or drag their feet on allowing their employees to do them.
Lawyer answer:
Based on the tax code rules, the Board needs to change the fair market value price at which they grant options / employee stock any time a major change has occurred that either reduces risk or materially changes company forecasts. Is a secondary sale of private company stock a material change that would have to be seen by the Board as a sign that the risk of investment in common stock has changed?
There are arguments on both sides of this question.
One one side, the secondary sale of shares of common stock shows that common stock is "liquid," or convertible into cash. The lack of liquidity is a big factor in the riskiness of stock and in the logic of discounting common stock value compared to preferred stock value, so liquidity for common stock would raise the "market" price of common stock. Also, the investor who invested has clearly signaled that he/she thinks the stock is less risky than the prior 409A valuation if he/she pays more than that valuation.
However, there are good arguments on the other side as well. The basic argument is that a one-off sale of common stock does not a market make. When you look at the FMV of publicly traded stock, it is based on many sales and the presumption that anyone who holds common stock can trade at any time. Small sales of private company common stock do not mean that any shareholder could find a buyer or that any shareholder could sell at that price. Another argument is that a single buyer or even group of buyers who do not have access to inside company information do not have enough information to know if the stock is more or less risky than the Board has determined it to be in setting the FMV. So one buyer or small group of buyers acting with limited information would not be the appropriate group to define the risk of the stock and, therefore, its fair market value.
Many thanks to Aranca for the following additions to this analysis:
In addition to 2 key points (# of sale points for the price paid, and profile of buyer + seller) that have been mentioned for assessing reasonability of price paid as reflection of FMV, I would like to add 2 more angles that would need to be evaluated while making the determination:
How many different buyers participated at the price that has been paid for the security: If there have been lets say a couple of parties that have transacted, the applicability for the price paid to be considered as reflection of FMV would be weak. However, if there are several buyers who bought from the seller, the applicability of price paid as a FMV can be high.
What has been the valuation range (if any) / bid-ask spread offered by buyers: If the available buyers give a valuation range which is wide and significantly different from the transacted price, then again the applicability of price paid as reflection of FMV becomes questionable. However, if there are sizable number of buyers providing a tight valuation range, then the applicability of price paid as an FMV can be a good indicator.
Mary Russell is an attorney and the founder of Stock Option Counsel. You are invited to contact Stock Option Counsel for help in negotiating and evaluating your job offers and post-acquisition employment agreements, making stock option exercise and tax decisions and identifying your rights and opportunities to sell startup stock.
Many thanks for the contributions of Dylan Gittleman, Vice-President, ARANCA US and Manpreet Singh, ASA, Manager, Valuation Services, ARANCA US. Aranca is a leading provider of 409A valuation services.