The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
techcrunch.com
The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
#2tl;dr Acqui-hires are are turning into just hires. Companies just want the talent from failed start ups. The acquirer lowballs cost of buying out equity and but keeps high retention comp to employees. In short term this is good for start up employees, but writer argues this will hurt seed ecosystem because investors don't like being burned.
Re: The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
#3tl;dr Acqui-hires are are turning into just hires. Companies just want the talent from failed start ups. The acquirer lowballs cost of buying out equity and but keeps high retention comp to employees. In short term this is good for start up employees, but writer argues this will hurt seed ecosystem because investors don't like being burned.
they don't get burned, they still make a return on their investment just not 10X or 100x or more that they would otherwise get for example in an IPO.
Re: The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
#4tl;dr Acqui-hires are are turning into just hires. Companies just want the talent from failed start ups. The acquirer lowballs cost of buying out equity and but keeps high retention comp to employees. In short term this is good for start up employees, but writer argues this will hurt seed ecosystem because investors don't like being burned.
And to follow on, what was a specifically interesting:
Reports that the premium was less that 1/3 salary per FTE being offered by the "Acquirer".
That is, these so-called "M&A deals" were valued at a mass-head-hunting contract.
(That being said, the submitted article reads more like an OP-ED than a more mainstream piece of journalism.)
Re: The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
#5tl;dr Z grade "seed investor" doesn't have the network to make acqui-hires happen. Top tier investors have no such problem.
Re: The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
#6Seems like sour grapes to me. If the startup is only worth pennies on the dollar, why should the investors get more than fair market value? This seems an awful like new city bankers who are all in favor of unrestrained free market capitalism, until their ox gets gored, at which point they are first in line for a government handout.
Re: The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
#7tl;dr Acqui-hires are are turning into just hires. Companies just want the talent from failed start ups. The acquirer lowballs cost of buying out equity and but keeps high retention comp to employees. In short term this is good for start up employees, but writer argues this will hurt seed ecosystem because investors don't like being burned.
And to follow on, what was a specifically interesting: Reports that the premium was less that 1/3 salary per FTE being offered by the "Acquirer". That is, these so-called "M&A deals" were valued at a mass-head-hunting contract. (That being said, the submitted article reads more like an OP-ED than a more mainstream piece of journalism.)
It's techcrunch, not journalism.
Re: The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
#8tl;dr Acqui-hires are are turning into just hires. Companies just want the talent from failed start ups. The acquirer lowballs cost of buying out equity and but keeps high retention comp to employees. In short term this is good for start up employees, but writer argues this will hurt seed ecosystem because investors don't like being burned.
they don't get burned, they still make a return on their investment just not 10X or 100x or more that they would otherwise get for example in an IPO.
They lost 90% of their investment. Not what people usually call "a return".
Re: The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
And to follow on, what was a specifically interesting: Reports that the premium was less that 1/3 salary per FTE being offered by the "Acquirer". That is, these so-called "M&A deals" were valued at a mass-head-hunting contract. (That being said, the submitted article reads more like an OP-ED than a more mainstream piece of journalism.)
It's techcrunch, not journalism.
Author is not a TC staff-writer / employee
Re: The End Of The Acqui-Hire?
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
they don't get burned, they still make a return on their investment just not 10X or 100x or more that they would otherwise get for example in an IPO.
They lost 90% of their investment. Not what people usually call "a return".
Maybe VCs should be more selective about who they give their money to. I'll get downvoted for this, but it seems 90% of funded start-ups don't deserve the mass funding they deserve (a portion of it sure, but the hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions in VC $? no).