5 ms·

The terms of the deal are $35 million in cash and SurveyMonkey stock (which is privately-held). The article doesn't give the split between them. It's prematur

The terms of the deal are $35 million in cash and SurveyMonkey stock (which is privately-held). The article doesn't give the split between them. It's premature to declare this a success. It's not like they were bought in an all-cash deal or bought with Google stock.

Geekette 15y ago
Although I haven't watched the video: Why should the mix matter? If the deal was deemed acceptable by the team and their investors, I assume it's because the terms left them comparatively better off. The fact is, they have tackled a need, out-executed others in a certain space, and achieved an exit strategy (nothing wrong with them not wanting to do forms forever). That is a success. Not everything has to be Google-level transaction to be declared a success.
- wilzy 15y ago
  Agreed. Eager to see the reasoning behind the 'mix' concept now.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - supahfly_remix 15y ago
    There's a difference between getting paid in cash, paid in stock in a publicly-traded company (e.g., Google), and paid in stock in a privately-traded company. The latter cannot be turned into cash easily, and its valuation is determined by private parties behind closed doors rather than in an open market. Which would you rather have: $1 million cash and $34 million of SurveyMonkey stock or vice versa?
  - nostrademons 15y ago
    Privately-held stock is riskier, because it's basically worthless until the acquirer has its own exit event. When you sell your company for stock, you're basically just trading stock in your company for stock in the acquirer. If the acquirer tanks before exiting, your shares are just as worthless as if you'd tanked before exiting. Now, it can sometimes work out - I doubt Evan Williams is complaining about selling Blogger to pre-IPO Google for (presumably - terms were never disclosed) stock. But in other cases, I'm not sure the founders did so well - SixApart, for example, isn't quite the darling it was when it purchased LiveJournal in 2005.
- matrix 15y ago
  The mix matters because shares in a privately held company are not very liquid, and fair valuation of those shares is sometimes problematic. In short, there's a decent chance the shares will be considerably less valuable than the terms of the deal might suggest. That said, I do feel this particular deal was a well-deserved success for the Wufoo guys. My congratulations to them for excellent execution!
byoung2 15y ago
According to CrunchBase, they were founded in 2006, and they only took $18k in YC seed money (1/06), and $100k in seed money from Paul Graham and Paul Buchheit (4/06). Even if that $35 million was mostly stock, it would seem to be a good return.
SwellJoe 15y ago
They were running on revenue, and had grown to a team of a dozen people, or so, without raising any additional capital beyond the few hundred thousand they'd raised in the beginning...so, they were obviously comfortably profitable and growing fast. There would have been no reason for them to sell for anything less than a very attractive offer that took that growth into account. And, those guys are not stupid; they declined a number of acquisition offers in the past from companies wanting to do mostly-stock deals. I'm certain at least a significant portion of the deal was for cash.

Geekette 15y ago

Although I haven't watched the video: Why should the mix matter? If the deal was deemed acceptable by the team and their investors, I assume it's because the terms left them comparatively better off. The fact is, they have tackled a need, out-executed others in a certain space, and achieved an exit strategy (nothing wrong with them not wanting to do forms forever). That is a success. Not everything has to be Google-level transaction to be declared a success.

wilzy 15y ago
Agreed. Eager to see the reasoning behind the 'mix' concept now.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- supahfly_remix 15y ago
  There's a difference between getting paid in cash, paid in stock in a publicly-traded company (e.g., Google), and paid in stock in a privately-traded company. The latter cannot be turned into cash easily, and its valuation is determined by private parties behind closed doors rather than in an open market. Which would you rather have: $1 million cash and $34 million of SurveyMonkey stock or vice versa?
- nostrademons 15y ago
  Privately-held stock is riskier, because it's basically worthless until the acquirer has its own exit event. When you sell your company for stock, you're basically just trading stock in your company for stock in the acquirer. If the acquirer tanks before exiting, your shares are just as worthless as if you'd tanked before exiting. Now, it can sometimes work out - I doubt Evan Williams is complaining about selling Blogger to pre-IPO Google for (presumably - terms were never disclosed) stock. But in other cases, I'm not sure the founders did so well - SixApart, for example, isn't quite the darling it was when it purchased LiveJournal in 2005.
matrix 15y ago
The mix matters because shares in a privately held company are not very liquid, and fair valuation of those shares is sometimes problematic. In short, there's a decent chance the shares will be considerably less valuable than the terms of the deal might suggest. That said, I do feel this particular deal was a well-deserved success for the Wufoo guys. My congratulations to them for excellent execution!

byoung2 15y ago

According to CrunchBase, they were founded in 2006, and they only took $18k in YC seed money (1/06), and $100k in seed money from Paul Graham and Paul Buchheit (4/06). Even if that $35 million was mostly stock, it would seem to be a good return.

SwellJoe 15y ago

They were running on revenue, and had grown to a team of a dozen people, or so, without raising any additional capital beyond the few hundred thousand they'd raised in the beginning...so, they were obviously comfortably profitable and growing fast. There would have been no reason for them to sell for anything less than a very attractive offer that took that growth into account. And, those guys are not stupid; they declined a number of acquisition offers in the past from companies wanting to do mostly-stock deals. I'm certain at least a significant portion of the deal was for cash.