3 ms·
These two threads seem contradictory to me: 1> For the employees, [post-acquisition] is business as usual for the most part. The goal is for the employees to n
by meredydd 6y ago
These two threads seem contradictory to me:
1> For the employees, [post-acquisition] is business as usual for the most part. The goal is for the employees to not even notice.
2> You can buy companies and replace expensive people with a global remote workforce that is just as good (or better) and cheaper.
Can someone with more knowledge or experience of Tiny acquisitions explain which of these is true? Are they a holding company for SaaS companies with extra best practices, or a cuddly face on traditional PE cost-cutting tactics? The article itself doesn't seem sure. (And, oddly, appears not to notice the contradiction.)
- marban 6y agoShort version: I'd say their goal is to build a Berkshire equivalent consisting of businesses that are in for the long-run with a calculable revenue model that requires little to no OP costs.
- jjoonathan 6y agoYeah, those and half a dozen other admissions of the usual PE tactics. The article makes it abundantly clear that it's a cuddly face on traditional vulture capitalism. The only way for it to be anything else would be for the article to be wrong and for the firm to ignore their incentives. Seems unlikely.
- Sevii 6y agoI’ve experienced something similar where after the acquisition nothing really changed for current employees but most new hires were in the Mexico office.