by hglaser on 1/12/24, 11:24 PM with 98 comments
by cj on 1/14/24, 9:48 PM
100%
Which is why I hate that exclusivity is industry standard.
It feels exploitative that acquirers can demand exclusivity in a deal when the chances of it closing are less than 80%.
Imagine selling a house and taking it off the market because you got an offer with a 50% chance of actually closing 3 months later.
Even worse, most acquirers will say “nope” if you ask them to cover your legal fees if they back out of the deal.
This happens because sellers of companies only sell 1 or 2 companies in their lifetime, while buyers of companies typically do dozens and dozens of transactions. There’s an extreme power imbalance in favor of acquirers. Most sellers learn these lessons the hard way.
by gumby on 1/14/24, 9:12 PM
I don't know what the second one he has in mind is; the some of the ones I know are:
1 - operate a profitable business that throws off a ton of cash (these can be huge, like Koch, Cargill, Aldi, and can make long term employees extremely, and privately, rich).
2 - sell part of your company to the public (IPO)
3 - sell the whole company (M&A)
4 - spin out or sell off a division (a kind of M&A)
One major disadvantage of 2-4 is that other people tend to hear about it.
by didgetmaster on 1/15/24, 2:47 AM
Few people will take the chance to join a risky venture if the didn't see some kind of payout down the road. I once left my stable job to join a startup. I took a salary cut and even loaned them money to make paroll. But I got some founders stock and had confidence in the product we were building. It payed off years later when the company was aquired.
But I also knew that I had to contribute effectively if I wanted that company to succeed. Too many will join a startup just to be on the bandwagon if an M&A event happens. They think they will win big even if they do little to make that actually happen. These people are parasites that can kill a startup.
by mbesto on 1/14/24, 7:29 PM
by lhh on 1/14/24, 10:33 PM
If anyone is interested in how things tend to work if you're trying to proactively sell a company (especially a profitable one), I put together a write up a while back: https://www.fivecastfinancial.com/guides/how-selling-a-compa...
(I used to be an M&A advisor - no longer!)
by ramraj07 on 1/15/24, 1:22 AM
> Punctuated by fielding calls from confused angel investors.
Can someone ELIE - explain it like I’m an engineer?
by alberth on 1/15/24, 2:32 AM
It’s implied when OP says “run a good business”, but as someone who’s been on the acquiring side - it becomes a lot harder to be the advocate to buy a company when it’s losing money.
(The business case math gets hard fast, with unprofitable companies & introduces a lot more risk)
by heads on 1/14/24, 9:58 PM
What is corp dev’s role then?
Maybe they like an in house recruiter: they conduct negotiations and ease the process by meeting with both parties, but the yay/nay decisions are made by the hiring manager?
by corentin88 on 1/15/24, 8:19 AM
Otherwise, no one will buy it, or the price will be much lower than you expect.
by lazyeye on 1/15/24, 7:54 AM
https://awilkinson.medium.com/the-berkshire-hathaway-of-the-...
by poopiokaka on 1/15/24, 1:42 PM
by thewizardofaus on 1/15/24, 2:07 AM
I've always seen the statement of getting competing offers but how does it actually work in reality?
Is it as simple as contacting the key decision maker from competitor and saying...
"I've got an offer X, what can you do?"
by stagger87 on 1/14/24, 7:50 PM
Edit: Nvm, I found some sources for this claim.
by bmitc on 1/14/24, 10:44 PM
At least someone's finally honest about it. Startup culture is in general a blight.