skeeter2020 3 hours ago

This was driven home to me at SaaS company with > $80M ARR when the new CEO was parachuted in by the PE owner said in an all-hands "and we're close to cashflow positive when we account for our interest payments..." How can a software company generating this much subscription revenue NOT be making money? When it's servicing the > $500M the PE firm used to buy it. The rest of the playbook was boringly predictable: cut costs, sign multi-year enterprise deals, sell before the current fund's horizon and hope the music doesn't end.

As a result I prefer the naked greed of VCs where everybody - VC, owners, employees - knows the plan is IPO because at least it's transparent compared to the dirty lies a lot of PE pushes.

▲

matheusmoreira 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It's the destructiveness that gets me. It's a perfectly good company, employees are happy, consumers are happy, profit is being made, it's sustaining itself... Then they come and just literally destroy all that.

This can't be good for society. I wonder why it's just not criminalized somehow.

	▲	Terr_ 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> It's a perfectly good company [...] I wonder why it's just not criminalized somehow. Not-an-expert here, but I think part of the problem is that it's hard to draw a nice legally-enforceable line that would distinguish when it's a "perfectly good" company versus one crying out for intervention. For example, suppose a company is floundering because of executive mismanagement, outrageous compensation to the C-suite, etc. In that case, someone could LBO in, fix things up, and then sell the revitalized thing later and make a modest profit while improving the world. It's... less likely, but they could.