Saying you want to control your company and you want to be around 10 years and then raising VC funding is either naive or dishonest.

VCs aren’t interested in a lifestyle business throwing them maybe a small dividend and a miniscule number of companies go public. Look at YC, they have invested in thousands of companies and only around 20 have gone public and only 3 have had positive returns since going public

https://medium.com/@Arakunrin/the-post-ipo-performance-of-y-...

▲

airstrike 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The problem with that analysis is it ignores all the companies that exited through an acquisition rather than public markets.

If anything, it's an endorsement of M&A.

▲

raw_anon_1111 10 hours ago | parent [-]

My “analysis” was the idea of a private company that seems to want to stay independent and control their own destrone like the author of the submission wants. There are only two ways to stay independent - stay private forever or go public.

Once you take outside funding, you really have no choice but an acquisition or go public. VCs don’t want to get tiny dividend checks. Even public shareholders will insist on a sale at the right price

▲

airstrike 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Going public doesn't keep you independent, though, unless you were already the kind of unicorn that has enough pull to own a massive amount of shares and/or a special class of them

▲

raw_anon_1111 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Isn’t that what I just said?

> Even public shareholders will insist on a sale at the right price

▲

airstrike 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, but that isn't all you said and it isn't even right.

Public shareholders generally don't insist on anything as they are dispersed. They may elect directors to the board, but that question gets into all sorts of dynamics about who actually really votes when annual meetings come around, board independence, activist shareholders and whatnot.

Put all of that aside and assume for a second that directors are a perfect representation of shareholder interests. Boards do not "insist on a sale". Instead, they may have the _fiduciary duty_ to consider bona fide acquisition offers and take the decision that maximizes shareholder value, triggered upon certain conditions (cf Revlon Duties)

▲

raw_anon_1111 8 hours ago | parent [-]

How many times have the board refused a sell for the right amount of money.

▲

airstrike 8 hours ago | parent [-]

That is not "insisting on a sale". Selling for the right amount of money is literally the right decision to make!

▲

raw_anon_1111 7 hours ago | parent [-]

The entire submission is about someone who doesn’t want to be acquired even at “the right price”. You don’t have that option when you take outside investors.

	▲	airstrike 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's right. And that's why I said "There are only two ways to stay independent - stay private forever or go public" is not accurate.

▲

Lionga 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Talk about dumping your trash on retail, YC is a lot smarter then I thought

	▲	trollbridge 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The house always wins.

▲

adiazyc 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]