3 ms·
"VCs will still be able to convince; they just won't be able to compel. And the startups where they have to resort of compulsion are not the ones that matter an
by iamwil 16y ago
"VCs will still be able to convince; they just won't be able to compel. And the startups where they have to resort of compulsion are not the ones that matter anyway. "
I excepted some sort of footnote for this one. It's not immediately obvious to me this is true.
Hypothetically, the founders are the ones that know their business the best, and hence tend to have a longer term vision. Given that the founder executes on the long term vision, those are the companies that matter. Is that the line of thinking?
- shimon 16y agoIf an investor disagrees with a founder so much that they are willing to take actions that force that founder to act against his/her own will, then things must be in pretty bad shape. When a company is doing great, nobody picks fights with its leaders. On the other hand, there may be cases where a generally positive opportunity, such as a possible sale, is valued very differently by a founder and VCs. I'm not sure how common these cases are, or whether there are existing rules about the board's obligations to shareholders that reduce the likelihood of conflict.