4 ms·

This doesn’t work in practice due to typically severe time constraints. You cannot expect a business that has 6 days of life left to wait for such an approval p

This doesn’t work in practice due to typically severe time constraints. You cannot expect a business that has 6 days of life left to wait for such an approval process. These things never happen fast.

turmacar 3y ago
What M&A are you familiar with that they can typically happen in a 6 day timeframe? I know this is already a stressed straw man in the first place but M&A are aren't a short simple process anyway. Adding some oversight isn't going to change that. Yes there are tradeoffs to more regulation vs total anarchy/free market. That doesn't mean they're not worth it. "Good" is not the enemy of "perfect" and all.
- akiselev 3y ago
  > What M&A are you familiar with that they can typically happen in a 6 day timeframe? Youtube, for one: https://techcrunch.com/2011/10/30/the-entire-1-65b-acquisition-of-youtube-took-a-week-was-negotiated-at-dennys/ https://techcrunch.com/2011/10/30/the-entire-1-65b-acquisiti... Android as well, if I'm remembering correctly. They don't necessarily need to complete the acquisition in a week, just get the broad details negotiated and agreed to. Given the GP's bankruptcy example, if they thought it was worth the risk the acquirer can extend a bare minimum amount of credit to keep the company alive while they do the rest of due diligence and finish the acquisition, folding it into a breakup fee.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  An M&A negotiation can take a matter of hours, in theory. Only for public/very big companies does it get weird.
- freddie_mercury 3y ago
  > What M&A are you familiar with that they can typically happen in a 6 day timeframe? Virtually every single bank failure that happens results in an M&A that is negotiated over a weekend. Most recently Credit Suisse collapsed in March. UBS bought it on Monday, March 19, after negotiations began on Friday, March 16. UBS offered a price that was 60% lower than the Friday closing price. The deal was accepted.
  - alex028502 3y ago
    Interestingly in this case an "approval" similar to the one we are talking about did happen over that weekend didn't it? I think the approvers brokered the deal.
    - abenga 3y ago
      Regulators were concerned about a collapse causing contagion that results in a financial crisis. Would they care to do that for a little startup with a few dozen employees?
flangola7 3y ago
The FTC had no problem running FTX on less notice.
ClumsyPilot 3y ago
> You cannot expect a business that has 6 days of life left to wait for such an approval process. A homeless man that has 6 hours left to live in the cold winter often cant get shelter, because instead we are really concerned with caterting the entire fabric of society to fictiontion problems that might one day affect a mismanaged business.
- parineum 3y ago
  Explain how that is related.
  - mtsr 3y ago
    I’ll try to explain: Clearly there are serious scenarios outside M&A where we accept terrible failures due to regulations. Why not accept some in M&A as well?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      Admittedly, I read the other comment as a whataboutism. This explanation seems to help. I think one could argue that the business failure is likely to affect more people, therefore it’s a greater impact. Still, I ultimately agree with this stance (in the context of business survival, not personal); failure is an inherent risk of business.
      - mtsr 3y ago
        Agreed. The number of people affected is a big difference. But I think the comparison does make clear that isn’t necessarily a principled reason not to accept a few failures as part of otherwise useful regulation.
        omniglottal 3y ago
        A "few failures as part of otherwise useful regulation" sounds an awful lot like some innocent victims exists, treated as guilty. Treating the (presumed) innocent as though guilty, by regulation even, doesn't sound all that good. In fact, seems there in fact are profound and relevant principles to not accept that.

turmacar 3y ago

What M&A are you familiar with that they can typically happen in a 6 day timeframe? I know this is already a stressed straw man in the first place but M&A are aren't a short simple process anyway. Adding some oversight isn't going to change that. Yes there are tradeoffs to more regulation vs total anarchy/free market. That doesn't mean they're not worth it. "Good" is not the enemy of "perfect" and all.

akiselev 3y ago
> What M&A are you familiar with that they can typically happen in a 6 day timeframe? Youtube, for one: https://techcrunch.com/2011/10/30/the-entire-1-65b-acquisition-of-youtube-took-a-week-was-negotiated-at-dennys/ https://techcrunch.com/2011/10/30/the-entire-1-65b-acquisiti... Android as well, if I'm remembering correctly. They don't necessarily need to complete the acquisition in a week, just get the broad details negotiated and agreed to. Given the GP's bankruptcy example, if they thought it was worth the risk the acquirer can extend a bare minimum amount of credit to keep the company alive while they do the rest of due diligence and finish the acquisition, folding it into a breakup fee.
pclmulqdq 3y ago
An M&A negotiation can take a matter of hours, in theory. Only for public/very big companies does it get weird.
freddie_mercury 3y ago
> What M&A are you familiar with that they can typically happen in a 6 day timeframe? Virtually every single bank failure that happens results in an M&A that is negotiated over a weekend. Most recently Credit Suisse collapsed in March. UBS bought it on Monday, March 19, after negotiations began on Friday, March 16. UBS offered a price that was 60% lower than the Friday closing price. The deal was accepted.
- alex028502 3y ago
  Interestingly in this case an "approval" similar to the one we are talking about did happen over that weekend didn't it? I think the approvers brokered the deal.
  - abenga 3y ago
    Regulators were concerned about a collapse causing contagion that results in a financial crisis. Would they care to do that for a little startup with a few dozen employees?

flangola7 3y ago

The FTC had no problem running FTX on less notice.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

> You cannot expect a business that has 6 days of life left to wait for such an approval process. A homeless man that has 6 hours left to live in the cold winter often cant get shelter, because instead we are really concerned with caterting the entire fabric of society to fictiontion problems that might one day affect a mismanaged business.

parineum 3y ago
Explain how that is related.
- mtsr 3y ago
  I’ll try to explain: Clearly there are serious scenarios outside M&A where we accept terrible failures due to regulations. Why not accept some in M&A as well?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    Admittedly, I read the other comment as a whataboutism. This explanation seems to help. I think one could argue that the business failure is likely to affect more people, therefore it’s a greater impact. Still, I ultimately agree with this stance (in the context of business survival, not personal); failure is an inherent risk of business.
    - mtsr 3y ago
      Agreed. The number of people affected is a big difference. But I think the comparison does make clear that isn’t necessarily a principled reason not to accept a few failures as part of otherwise useful regulation.
      - omniglottal 3y ago
        A "few failures as part of otherwise useful regulation" sounds an awful lot like some innocent victims exists, treated as guilty. Treating the (presumed) innocent as though guilty, by regulation even, doesn't sound all that good. In fact, seems there in fact are profound and relevant principles to not accept that.