3 ms·
They are rumored to have turned down 130M acquisition. Assuming that was true, then sure he wasn't worth 60M but he would have gotten 15-30M, no? I like how you
by zaidf 16y ago
They are rumored to have turned down 130M acquisition. Assuming that was true, then sure he wasn't worth 60M but he would have gotten 15-30M, no? I like how you guys think and am def. more excited by revenue than the other path to riches(getting acquired due to the potential in your company as seen by the acquirer).
And yet, while you may have been "right" in this case, you could have easily been "wrong". What if Digg had been acquired for 130M or 200M? What do you have to say about YouTube which was bleeding dollars until recently but seems like it will go down as one of the better acquisitions of the decade? They had very little rev; lots of investment riding; and far from profitability. And yet Google acquired them for a buncha money.
May be it is not as clear cut as simply taking the revenue just as it isn't as clear cut as taking the valuation from the last round?
- staunch 16y agoTheir recipe is simple. Claim every new major web company is bullshit. If they fail say "I told you so". If they succeed say "They were just lucky."
- brianpan 16y agoThat wasn't their claim, read the post.
- spitfire 16y agoYou know, that's a pretty good strategy. YOu'll be right a lot more than 50% of the time....
- dkarl 16y agoYeah, but you'll be right on all the stories nobody remembers and wrong on the big stories. That's why most people do it the other way around. "Never heard of these guys? You will soon!" "The world is never going to be the same!"
- jforman 16y agoThat's a big assumption to make, considering plenty of deals break down at the last minute for one reason or another. There's a large gap between a term sheet and a final, signed contract.