"And if you’re lucky enough to get a life-changing acquisition offer like Mike Arrington just did, follow his example. Go for the billion dollars when you start your next company—by then you’ll have more experience and you won’t be risking the kids’ college education."
His mistake is to forget that the two options aren't exclusive. A large percentage of founders in startups successful enough to be on their way to being worth a billion dollars manage to cash out partially en route. So you don't have to choose between trying to make the company a big success and your kids' educations.
How do you decide whether or not to sell? There are two factors to consider: how much you like the work, and how good the offer is. If working on the company is what you want to do with your life, as it seems to be for Mark Zuckerberg for example, then you shouldn't sell unless you need to. Whereas if someone makes you an offer so good you'd be crazy to refuse it, then you might want to take it, even if you hadn't planned to sell.
(Strictly speaking, if you have shareholders, you have a fiduciary duty to do whatever's right for them. But since the founders' level of motivation is usually the dominant factor in the future value of early stage startups, in practice that usually reduces to doing what you prefer.)
I had sent some critical comments back but it seemed the rest of the class, which didn't have any real-world experience whatsoever, took all of Wadhwa's essays as gospel.
Yes, the founders level of motivation is a key factor of risk for a startup company, one thing is early after the creation and another ten years after, even if your company is profitable. One test is how motivation works after macro/micro economic cycles (i.e: dot com) or inflection points (crisis or growth). Also excelent moments in a company gives a false sense of security for the inexperienced management, so... I'll get the money if I have the risk of being out of business and without some personal financial security
"in practice that usually reduces to doing what you prefer"
Unless a set of investors with board control want to sell and the Founder/CEO does not. They can then sack the CEO and replace them with a Yes person. Right?
I never really understood this debate... as if all companies should go big, or all companies should stay small/medium. Every business is different. Businesses have varying amounts of potential for growth, varying numbers of possible revenue streams, and even varying numbers of directions in which to pivot should things hit a wall.
If you're selling people hands-on classes in underwater basket-weaving, it's probably not a good idea to make all your classes free so you can chase VC money. On the flip side, if you've created a social network that's on track to become the biggest website ever, it's clearly unwise to sacrifice that massive potential by cashing out early. One-size-fits-all arguments ("All companies should go for the gold!") don't make any sense, and are probably issued by people who have a direct incentive for their arguments to become reality.
The debate is for people/companies who have a choice-- obviously you're right about the fact that there's no debate where there is no choice. Mint sold for $150m, but perhaps could've aimed bigger. Blogger sold pretty early-- perhaps they could've been/beaten WordPress. Google famously tried to sell for $1m to Excite. LOTS of companies who sell early have an opportunity to aim bigger.
I think partial cash-out Series B rounds are a good development which allows founders to have their cake and eat it too. Aaron Patzer probably could've raised a big Series B, pocketed a few million for himself and retained a fairly massive chunk of ownership.
It's not rational, but part of the Silicon Valley mindset is "go big or go home" and oftentimes people don't stop to think whether it's good for their business, they just accept it as fact.
Too many founders are focusing on the big exit. Survivor bias really feeds this too, as we hear all these great "I got rich" stories from successful exits, and never hear the "I failed hard" stories from failed startups.
Tuning your company for acquisition instead of profitability is stupid. Don't do it. Cashing out for $10M or $1B are probably not options you actually ever have, so don't fixate on them.
Would be interested to hear how many funded entrepreneurs on HN were able to cash out some shares at any point in their company's history (similar to what the Foursquare guys did)...
Your lifespan, healthspan, lifetime happiness and ability to run a company will only go up once you cash out for 4-10 million or more. You've literally solved the money problem at that point.
Why would you risk that on a vanity billion dollar exit?
Some people would rather be famous, be the toast of the town, be adored by who they perceive as their peer group, leave who they perceive as their peer group, be on the front cover of Newsweek, get a movie written about them, etc... than have life, or health, money, or a successful business.
It is basically the Achilles question, right? Durable since the classics: would you like to live long or die gloriously?
(Like most dichotomies, there are almost certainly options in the solution set not mentioned.)
If you're doing what you love, why give that up for money and the chance to find another thing you love? Lightning doesn't always strike twice.
Also, to rip off Sean Parker's character in "The Social Network", do you want to end up like Roy Raymond, who committed suicide after selling Victoria's Secret on the cheap, watching with regret as it grew into the billions?
Maybe some would say I lack ambition, but I wouldn't even need millions. If my start-up was acquired for enough to pay off the mortgage and toss a bit of funding into the next venture, I'd be happy, but I'm looking at it from someone in the perspective of being in a very low cost of income area, who's building up a business from $0 in outside funding.
Do I think our product has potential for more? Yeah, sure (though it's still in development at the moment), but I'd rather have the security of having "enough" than the risk of waiting for a top-dollar offer and ending up with nothing if it never happened.
Which maybe means the start-up scene isn't the best fit for me in the first place, but I love what I do.
Well, a billion dollar company might enable you to make a 'bigger' difference. You help make your employees wealthy (Google's millionaire emplyees), you help shape whatever sector you're in (hopefully for the better). You create value for you shareholders. Everyone's a winner, theoretically.
That is a personal question. However, here are two books that might help you answer it: (1) The Black Swan and (2) Early Exits: Exit Strategies for Entrepreneurs and Angel Investors (But Maybe Not Venture Capitalists)
[+] [-] pg|15 years ago|reply
"And if you’re lucky enough to get a life-changing acquisition offer like Mike Arrington just did, follow his example. Go for the billion dollars when you start your next company—by then you’ll have more experience and you won’t be risking the kids’ college education."
His mistake is to forget that the two options aren't exclusive. A large percentage of founders in startups successful enough to be on their way to being worth a billion dollars manage to cash out partially en route. So you don't have to choose between trying to make the company a big success and your kids' educations.
How do you decide whether or not to sell? There are two factors to consider: how much you like the work, and how good the offer is. If working on the company is what you want to do with your life, as it seems to be for Mark Zuckerberg for example, then you shouldn't sell unless you need to. Whereas if someone makes you an offer so good you'd be crazy to refuse it, then you might want to take it, even if you hadn't planned to sell.
(Strictly speaking, if you have shareholders, you have a fiduciary duty to do whatever's right for them. But since the founders' level of motivation is usually the dominant factor in the future value of early stage startups, in practice that usually reduces to doing what you prefer.)
[+] [-] eitally|15 years ago|reply
I had sent some critical comments back but it seemed the rest of the class, which didn't have any real-world experience whatsoever, took all of Wadhwa's essays as gospel.
[+] [-] srwh|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianwaj|15 years ago|reply
Unless a set of investors with board control want to sell and the Founder/CEO does not. They can then sack the CEO and replace them with a Yes person. Right?
[+] [-] csallen|15 years ago|reply
If you're selling people hands-on classes in underwater basket-weaving, it's probably not a good idea to make all your classes free so you can chase VC money. On the flip side, if you've created a social network that's on track to become the biggest website ever, it's clearly unwise to sacrifice that massive potential by cashing out early. One-size-fits-all arguments ("All companies should go for the gold!") don't make any sense, and are probably issued by people who have a direct incentive for their arguments to become reality.
[+] [-] webwright|15 years ago|reply
I think partial cash-out Series B rounds are a good development which allows founders to have their cake and eat it too. Aaron Patzer probably could've raised a big Series B, pocketed a few million for himself and retained a fairly massive chunk of ownership.
[+] [-] myoung8|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gvb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jacquesm|15 years ago|reply
If you're not looking for your exit too hard it just might come your way anyway, and building a solid business is one way to work towards that goal.
If you're only focused on your exit and it doesn't happen or the timing is off you are probably in a lot of trouble.
[+] [-] Rantenki|15 years ago|reply
Too many founders are focusing on the big exit. Survivor bias really feeds this too, as we hear all these great "I got rich" stories from successful exits, and never hear the "I failed hard" stories from failed startups.
Tuning your company for acquisition instead of profitability is stupid. Don't do it. Cashing out for $10M or $1B are probably not options you actually ever have, so don't fixate on them.
[+] [-] shafqat|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] makmanalp|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gte910h|15 years ago|reply
Your lifespan, healthspan, lifetime happiness and ability to run a company will only go up once you cash out for 4-10 million or more. You've literally solved the money problem at that point.
Why would you risk that on a vanity billion dollar exit?
[+] [-] patio11|15 years ago|reply
It is basically the Achilles question, right? Durable since the classics: would you like to live long or die gloriously?
(Like most dichotomies, there are almost certainly options in the solution set not mentioned.)
[+] [-] Psyonic|15 years ago|reply
Also, to rip off Sean Parker's character in "The Social Network", do you want to end up like Roy Raymond, who committed suicide after selling Victoria's Secret on the cheap, watching with regret as it grew into the billions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Raymond_(businessman)
[+] [-] kellishaver|15 years ago|reply
Do I think our product has potential for more? Yeah, sure (though it's still in development at the moment), but I'd rather have the security of having "enough" than the risk of waiting for a top-dollar offer and ending up with nothing if it never happened.
Which maybe means the start-up scene isn't the best fit for me in the first place, but I love what I do.
[+] [-] budu3|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Aetius|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexcharlie|15 years ago|reply
Life changing work is more important.
[+] [-] kallena|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anthonyb|15 years ago|reply