Angel Etiquette
blog.eladgil.com
Angel Etiquette
1–10 of 11 posts
Re: Angel Etiquette
#2Acquihires are typically four year commitments? That's crazy.
Re: Angel Etiquette
#3Acquihires are typically four year commitments? That's crazy.
[deleted]
Re: Angel Etiquette
#4Acquihires are typically four year commitments? That's crazy.
Huh. That doesn't seem crazy to me at all, I mean, if you are paying a bunch of money per-head, you want those heads to stick around a while. And I thought that VC funded aqui-hires were typically $1M+ per head? Yeah, I'll stick around four years for $250K/yr on top of market salary.
On the other hand, if I have 2% of the company, uh, yeah, then it looks a lot worse. but legally speaking, my understanding is that you can walk (you lose your golden handcuffs, but 2% of a million bucks is... not going to keep a silicon valley nerd anywhere they don't want to stay.)
Re: Angel Etiquette
#5Acquihires are typically four year commitments? That's crazy.
Huh. That doesn't seem crazy to me at all, I mean, if you are paying a bunch of money per-head, you want those heads to stick around a while. And I thought that VC funded aqui-hires were typically $1M+ per head? Yeah, I'll stick around four years for $250K/yr on top of market salary. On the other hand, if I have 2% of the company, uh, yeah, then it looks a lot worse. but legally speaking, my understanding is that you…
I've been through two earnouts, and am familiar with a bunch more, and four years sounds long. That's an enormous opportunity cost.
Re: Angel Etiquette
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh. That doesn't seem crazy to me at all, I mean, if you are paying a bunch of money per-head, you want those heads to stick around a while. And I thought that VC funded aqui-hires were typically $1M+ per head? Yeah, I'll stick around four years for $250K/yr on top of market salary. On the other hand, if I have 2% of the company, uh, yeah, then it looks a lot worse. but legally speaking, my understanding is that you…
I've been through two earnouts, and am familiar with a bunch more, and four years sounds long. That's an enormous opportunity cost.
Interesting. Now, I'm small-ball. Microscopic-ball, I imagine, compared to the stuff you've seen. But the two most serious offers I've gotten were on 9 month and two year timescales (I turned down the short one 'cause there was no way the buyer could have kept the company running after I left after 9 months. It was an okay deal for me, but I'm not going to just burn the company. I turned down the two year offer mostly because they weren't offering enough to make up for, as you put it, the opportunity cost of me sticking around. They wanted to own the company but wanted to keep paying me like I owned the company.)
But, it just seems to me that if they really are buying the company for the employees, and not for the company itself, they are going to want the employees for more than two years. Yeah, they have to make it worth the employee's time, but it doesn't seem like it's worth the employer's money if they only stick around for two years.
Oddly, both the offers for my company were presented to me as "really, we mostly want to hire you" - but the terms of both offers were such that I would have been nuts to stick around after my earn-out was up, so it's possible that they really just wanted the company and thought I'd be more receptive if they talked me up? If you know me, you'd find that strategy odd, but eh.
Re: Angel Etiquette
#7Acquihires are typically four year commitments? That's crazy.
two to three years, typically.
Re: Angel Etiquette
#8Re: Angel Etiquette
#9Re: Angel Etiquette
#10Acquihires are typically four year commitments? That's crazy.
two to three years, typically.
I think it really depends on the company and context. E.g. if it is truly an "acqua-hire" for team members only, it is 4 years. If there is some IP, asset, or expertise thrown in the timeframes can be shorter. It also depends on the company doing the acquiring....