back
12 comments
3 years to do a sale is far too long. By the time things are ready to go there's no point, the market has long moved on.

What could really be causing this? It's not the stated reasons because if it was the problem would have been solved.

I suspect that like with divorce attorneys, it has to be because lawyers are winding up their clients to create contention and increase their own profits.

You mean people might have to build a product that people will buy in the long term rather than trying to flip a quick buck? Madness I say.
I think that you are -- incorrectly, unfairly and without data -- assuming that the companies being discussed in this article are not focused on delivering long-term value to customers.

Personally, I just recently went through this process after 10 years of helping to build a company. A decent portion of my payout was held for over a year in escrow, while I had to pay income taxes on it, as of the deal closing date, as earned income. I would hardly characterize my decade of work as an attempt to "flip a quick buck".

Would you like him to apologize because you made a bad deal for yourself? His comment is over-broad and snarky, but it simultaneously makes a good point.
At the risk of taking the troll-bait, I'm not asking for any kind of apology or sympathy. I'm actually quite happy with the deal I got all in all, and in any case, I wasn't at the table when the terms were set. I'm simply pointing out that it's extremely naive to think that focusing on creating long-term value for customers cures all ills.

In fact, we are in a period in business history where companies that have achieved cash-flow positive with good growth and a sizable revenue stream are at a loss as to how to free up cash for continued growth (and to reward early investors and employees). IPO'ing brings huge overhead with Sarbox, not to mention the requirement to manage the business to quarterly goals. Continued venture funding is usually quite a bad deal, loans are still really hard to get, and more creative options (like FB's private placement) are under lots of scrutiny from the SEC.

That leaves a buyout or private sale as the two best options, neither of which is an efficient transaction (ie unlikely to bring the highest value), and both of which are likely to come with some unattractive terms.

As an entrepreneur, don't underestimate the importance of this question: once you create a valuable business, how will you transform the equity that you've created for yourself, your employees and your backers into cash?

At the risk oif not being labeled a troll, you suggestion was that simeine had nor considered the very difficult circumstances whic made you accept a deal about which you feel compelled to complain on HN.

I have made an exceptional number of bad gambles in my life, butg I have never felt the ned to either justify or disclaim responsibility for the choices I made on a public forum.

If this sounds dickish, I apologize, sincerely. I have made the best decsions of which I was capable at any moment in time... my failings do not tepresent a failure on the part of those who depend on me.

It's actually a little more complicated than that because there are many reasons for one company to acquire another one, and many of those reasons have nothing to do with the performance of the actual product in question.
. <- if this period is my point, then what you're saying is somewhere on a completely different website (probably digg :-)

I'm saying that maybe people should think outside the acquisition box. I hear that some businesses actually make money by making something people will buy.

They are talking mostly about the escrow, which is held back payment to cover any legal issues that come up. 10-20% of the purchase price is typical.
I saw that and figured it was mundane. At least it provided a decent opportunity to rant. :-)
what about actually reading the article before commenting ?
The article talks about a deal struck in MID 2008, mid 2008 sounds awfully like two months before Bear Stearns crashed in September 2008, begetting economic apocalypse. To take a 7% haircut from the peak of the market is not a bad return. Especially good would be to be fully liquid during that period, hindsight is of course 20/20 and buying GS during that period would have been viewed as very risky, but again, in hindsight there would have been some amazing opportunities sitting on $125 million in cash. A deal struck today would probably be 20-30% less than mid-2008 valuations. There are an amazing number of blue chip stocks that you could have bought in 08Q3 to 09Q2 that would have doubled your money by now. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the deal but it sounds like sour grapes on what was probably a great deal retrospectively for the sellers.