What are some of the mind blowing facts about Mad Men?: originally appeared on Quora: The best answer to any question. Ask a question, get a great answer. Learn from experts and access insider knowledge. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+.
If you pay enough attention to little details from various episodes, you can figure out the cap table for Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce.
You can then also work out how much money each of the principals would have made in their would-be IPO, adjust according to inflation, and get a rough comparison to how much that would mean in a modern-day Silicon Valley liquidity event.
(Forgive me, I don't remember which episodes each of these clues was cited in; I just remember collecting them gradually as I watched -- if someone has citations, please edit-suggest or comment -- also, this contains some spoilers)
Upon formation, Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce has four senior partners and one junior partner. Eponymously, they are Roger Sterling, Bert Cooper, Don Draper, and Lane Pryce. The junior partner is Pete Campbell. They are not known to have taken any investment capital other than capital put in by the founding partners themselves.
In one of the episodes, reference is made to the profit-sharing dividends, wherein each of the senior partners receives one share, and the junior partner receives one-half of a share. Assuming these dividends are distributed proportional to ownership, the cap table at founding looks like:
Sterling, Cooper, Draper, Pryce each at ~22.2%, and Campbell at ~11.1%.
Later, Joan Harris negotiates a 5% stake in the company for her contributions. There is no indication that this stake comes disproportionately from any one partner's share, so we assume the existing stakeholders are diluted equally. Thus, post-Joan, the cap table looks like:
Sterling, Cooper, Draper, Pryce each at ~21.1%, Campbell at ~10.6%, and Joan at 5%.
This is the cap table at the time of the attempted IPO.
In the IPO episode, Pete remarks to Joan that the agreed-upon offering price will value the company at "over 20 million dollars." We can then proceed to trivially calculate how much each partner is worth, assuming the stock price holds after the first-day pop, etc.
- Sterling, Cooper, Draper, (and the now-deceased) Pryce are each worth ~4.22 million.
Pete Campbell is worth ~2.12 million. Joan Harris is worth1 million.The Bureau of Labor Statistics gives us the inflation ratio from 1968 to 2013 as 6.69x. That is, $1 million in 1968 is worth about $6.69m in 2013.
Subsequently, in 2013-equivalent dollars, we have:
- Sterling, Cooper, Draper, and the estate of Pryce are each worth28.2 million.
Pete Campbell is worth14.2 million. Joan Harris is worth6.69 million.- In 1968, the top marginal tax rate was 75.25% for annual earnings above200k. If the partners liquidated their shares in a prudently tax-advantaged manner, they would avoid paying this top marginal rate (keep in mind that a fairly rich salary in 1968 was30k/year - adjusted for inflation, this is200k/year in 2013 - Don Draper's salary as mentioned in the episode where he was re-negotiating this contract). Thus, the tax rate most relevant here is the probably the top marginal rate on long-term capital gains in 1968, which was 26.9%. Higher than today's, but still much lower than 75.25%.
By the (somewhat satirized) standards of Silicon Valley[1], an exit in the low-mid double-digit millions would put Sterling, Cooper, Draper, and Pryce's widow in "the area's middle class, financially independent but still striving to keep pace." In 1968 NYC's financial sector was nothing like the insane place it's become in the last decade (deca-millionaires feeling poor next to billionaires), so where they were living this payout would have definitely been pretty rich. Joan's payout is definitely enough to "sustain a single mother and son for a lifetime" (Lane Pryce's original words), assuming she liquidates her share in the most tax-advantaged manner and invests it wisely in income-bearing securities. Pete Campbell's inner demons: likely not sated.Of course, the IPO doesn't happen and instead SCDP merges with Ted Chaough's firm Cutler Gleason and Chaough. Frank Gleason is revealed to have pancreatic cancer in the same episode as the merger, so it's not clear whether he is part of the merger, so assuming that the only partners who join the combined entity are Ted Chaough and Jim Cutler, we assume that the merger treats them both as new senior partners in the combined entity, resulting in the following final cap table at the end of Season Six:
- Sterling, Cooper, Draper, [the estate of] Pryce, Chaough, Cutler each at ~14.8%.
Joan Harris at ~3.5%Note: Don Draper is actually fired at the end of the season 6, and there are two possibilities for the disposition of his equity: First -- the possibility that I consider more likely -- is that he owns the equity outright and so retains it after his termination and there is no change in the cap table. Second, it is possible that his equity was subject to a right-of-repurchase by the company and the other partners may have chosen to exercise it. This would seem unusually adversarial and, depending on the specific terms, may either have lapsed by this point or have a significant negative effect on the cash flow of the company so it is probably unlikely.
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.