Looking at M&A Aftermath

COMMENTS

Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View

<< < Page 37 / 37

startup_shutup 12/5/2012 | 3:09:45 AM

re: Looking at M&A Aftermath >> A greater than 90% start-up fail rate does not put me off giving it 100%.

You must be a startup founder or crony propagating the myth of self sacrfice to disenfranchised workers.....

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

sigint 12/5/2012 | 3:09:41 AM

re: Looking at M&A Aftermath Harking back to the original reference, I certainly don't have unrealistic expectations. A greater than 90% start-up fail rate does not put me off giving it 100%.
__________________________________________________

I do not think the failure rate is as high as 90%. It may be true that only 10% of all start-ups make the mega bucks. If run diligently, 3-4 in 10 start-ups with break even and become self sustaining.

Regrettably, founders and VCs almost never have the patience to go down that path.

All the very best with your venture! And let me know if you need any help from India. Just kidding :-)

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 3:09:38 AM

re: Looking at M&A Aftermath Reality is something like this:

Of the 1 in 10 startups that make money for their investors, about 1 in five pays the workers that got them there.

The most common excuse is: "Hey, I risked my money, and you took it, so you get thanks, and I get banks." The other is: "Well, if you can get a better deal, go get it".

In short: pure FU greed.

In my experience, only about 20% of the successful start-ups do the moral thing, which is give the workers that brought them there a good payoff too.

Just so we stay calibrated on what greed means, a fair payout for the workers means about 10% of the total money paid out. 4 out of 5 times its 1% or less.

Keep that in mind with your next start-up, and be sure your option package, salary, the business model, (etc, etc) the CEO and the entire BOD is worth your extra effort.

Do your DD before you bust your PP.

Better to bust your ass networking to find a good company with all the necessary components to make you 1) happy, 2) healthy, 3) loved, 4) wise, 5) wealthy... more or less in that order.

-WHy

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

startup_shutup 12/5/2012 | 3:09:37 AM

re: Looking at M&A Aftermath >> Now it's off to don my Kevlar cape of invincibility before starup_shownthedoor begins lobbing rancid eggs at me!

My purpose is document follies of a flawed model named run-of-the-mill startups in Silicon Valley. As long as there is due dilligence all around (employees included) and good documentation of the SCAM that goes around -- I am happy!

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

optical_man 12/5/2012 | 3:09:37 AM

re: Looking at M&A Aftermath why,
agree with your analysis w/ one exception:
You write:
"Keep that in mind with your next start-up, and be sure your option package, salary, the business model, (etc, etc) the CEO and the entire BOD is worth your extra effort. "

as opposed to the BOD/CEO/etc at ALA, NT, LU, ERICY?
What's the difference Why?
Simple. At a startup, to see shenanigans play out is up close and personal. To see it while at ALA/NT/LU/ERICYis to witness it from a distance. (unless you're a tenured SVP)
Same value system sometimes, just different levels of "this isn't personal, it's business"

I believe that morality and greatness tend to act like mercury in a dish. They'll always find each other, from the large glob VP to the small droplet Mail Boy, and bond (Intel, Wal-Mart, Southwest Airlines, Microsoft, Oracle (if you excuse Larry's mgmt style), Adobe, Dell, TI) Everyone at the above companies who was there early is massively wealthy. (or was. I know a few miscreants who blew their nest eggs on the oddest investments, and vices)

Mercury in a dish.
Now it's off to don my Kevlar cape of invincibility before starup_shownthedoor begins lobbing rancid eggs at me!
op

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

Stevery 12/5/2012 | 3:09:36 AM

re: Looking at M&A Aftermath From Whyiswhy:

Of the 1 in 10 startups that make money for their investors, about 1 in five pays the workers that got them there.

The most common excuse is: "Hey, I risked my money, and you took it, so you get thanks, and I get banks." The other is: "Well, if you can get a better deal, go get it".

And the truly hilarious thing is: Very few people can connect that the attitude in the second paragraph is the cause for their 1:10 payoff in the first paragraph.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

whyiswhy 12/5/2012 | 3:09:34 AM

re: Looking at M&A Aftermath Optical man:

DD works all the time. Networking does too. Buy beers for your friends, and they will buy beers for you, and maybe cluse you into the next great thing.

And wives of the world just thought we were all out getting drunk! Her drunk is our networking. But I digress.

Stevery:

Attitude is almost everyting, brains is the rest. The greed vibe spreads like a virus from the top to the bottom. It soon become evident to all that they need to look out for numero uno exclusively. Any sembleance of team spirit dies, at least among those with brains enough to know the shaft when it is shoved up their ass.

Then the start-up which only had a 10% chance at the best has a 10 ppm chance.

And its not just start-ups. In the established copporation, greed begets unions. Then management steals the pension funds. Bankruptcy as a business tactic.

A little greed is good. Excessive greed is bad.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

startup_shutup 12/5/2012 | 3:09:28 AM

re: Looking at M&A Aftermath >> A little greed is good. Excessive greed is bad.

That is the core of the problem, summarized as follows:

Run-of-the mill startups are basically bad -- people are there for greed NOT FOR CHANGING THE WORLD. A lot of startups create a lot of CONFUSION (== Silicon Valley Marketing Speak for INNOVATION).

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

friend 12/5/2012 | 3:09:08 AM

re: Looking at M&A Aftermath Tunable filters

See http://www.globes.co.il/servee...

Apparently selling off some pieces, not clear to whom

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

bobcat 12/5/2012 | 3:08:46 AM

re: Looking at M&A Aftermath
I was reading some of the posts and, your statement about;

"Bootstrap yourself out of your garage on positive cash flow. That means:
..."

made me think of this article that I just read.
I'm sharing it with ya.

http://www.fool.com/dripport/2...

Then I read this one too. So humor set in and made me think of the discovery channel. Can you say Dinosaur.
I think the species they called them was.., hiber-adapt-rex-not!. (-hiber- being latin for "winter" v.intr.), -adapt- (in Greek προσαρμόζω/ -ομαι, διασκευάζω),or a really bad word, meaning to become adapted: a species that has adapted well to winter climes.) -rex-, meaning; To play rex, to play the king; to domineer. [Obs.] -Not!- meaning adv.
In no way; to no degree. Used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition: I will not go. You may not have any.

http://biz.yahoo.com/fool/0507...

On a side note;
It ain't about the bling! or the thing! it's just about, da money. ;) and that's what the hokey-pokey is all about (Main Entry: monkey business Part of Speech: noun
Definition: shenanigans
Synonyms: antics, buffoonery, clowning around, foolishness, hanky-panky, high jinks, hokey-pokey, horseplay, misbehavior, mischief, monkeyshine, prank
.

Reply | Post Message | MESSAGES LIST | START A BOARD

<< < Page 37 / 37