4 ms·

The big difference here is that Runa Capital is a venture capital firm, and they already invested in MariaDB 8 years ago. To be honest I don't really understand

by jorams 3y ago

The big difference here is that Runa Capital is a venture capital firm, and they already invested in MariaDB 8 years ago. To be honest I don't really understand how this acquisition makes sense in that context.

runako 3y ago
It's trading at a market cap of around $31 million, which is below even its revenue. Could make sense to buy it, improve operating metrics, and then flip it. (Or buy it, make it profitable, and earn a return that way.)
- foota 3y ago
  I'm surprised the employees aren't making a buy out offer at this point. I'd love to own a reasonable fraction of the company I work for at that sort of price and would happily throw in some of my savings.
  - nickstinemates 3y ago
    I think that if you're working for a company facing this sort of situation you wouldn't be as bullish. On top of that you'd have ownership through stock options which you didn't need to fork over savings for.
  - swyx 3y ago
    well how many employees are left? just cause the company has revenues doesnt mean they have the wealth to buy their employer. ofc i'd absolutely love for this to happen. but also fair warning to any mariadb employees seriously considering this, figure out your renewal strategy first
  - runako 3y ago
    That makes sense, except the numbers may not match what people have/are willing to risk on their employer. $31m divided 500 ways (guessing @ staff size) is $62k each. That's a big bet in one place, and one that is likely to be out of reach for some staff.
  - skrause 3y ago
    Pumping my savings into a struggling company so that when it eventually fails I'm not only unemployed but also out of savings? That's a concentration risk I wouldn't want to have if I were a MariaDB employee.
    - robocat 3y ago
      And yet it is a concentration risk that most founders choose. Founder's investment to start bootstrapped is often opportunity cost of time (years of work instead of earning salary). Maybe some cash invested too. Or with VC, after years of work a founder's biggest asset is the common shares that are worth $0 if company folds.
    - foota 3y ago
      I mean, I certainly wouldn't invest all my savings, but like a year's or so worth of savings maybe.
    - ho_schi 3y ago
      The key words are “reasonable” and “concentration risk”. Companies not run by shareholders but employees are often unremarkable but do well in long term. From time to time family owned companies choose that path.
  - pavlov 3y ago
    MariaDB is out of cash and losing $12 million per quarter. Would you also throw in your savings next quarter to pay for the new losses? And the next quarter? And after that? Paying $30M today isn’t enough when the business is making heavy losses and nearly out of money. You need to have a plan to either raise a lot more money very soon, cut costs, or probably both. Employees aren’t well positioned to do either.
simonebrunozzi 3y ago
Might be that they already have a buyer, and want to get the whole company before turning it over for a profit.

by jorams 3y ago

runako 3y ago

It's trading at a market cap of around $31 million, which is below even its revenue. Could make sense to buy it, improve operating metrics, and then flip it. (Or buy it, make it profitable, and earn a return that way.)

foota 3y ago
I'm surprised the employees aren't making a buy out offer at this point. I'd love to own a reasonable fraction of the company I work for at that sort of price and would happily throw in some of my savings.
- nickstinemates 3y ago
  I think that if you're working for a company facing this sort of situation you wouldn't be as bullish. On top of that you'd have ownership through stock options which you didn't need to fork over savings for.
- swyx 3y ago
  well how many employees are left? just cause the company has revenues doesnt mean they have the wealth to buy their employer. ofc i'd absolutely love for this to happen. but also fair warning to any mariadb employees seriously considering this, figure out your renewal strategy first
- runako 3y ago
  That makes sense, except the numbers may not match what people have/are willing to risk on their employer. $31m divided 500 ways (guessing @ staff size) is $62k each. That's a big bet in one place, and one that is likely to be out of reach for some staff.
- skrause 3y ago
  Pumping my savings into a struggling company so that when it eventually fails I'm not only unemployed but also out of savings? That's a concentration risk I wouldn't want to have if I were a MariaDB employee.
  - robocat 3y ago
    And yet it is a concentration risk that most founders choose. Founder's investment to start bootstrapped is often opportunity cost of time (years of work instead of earning salary). Maybe some cash invested too. Or with VC, after years of work a founder's biggest asset is the common shares that are worth $0 if company folds.
  - foota 3y ago
    I mean, I certainly wouldn't invest all my savings, but like a year's or so worth of savings maybe.
  - ho_schi 3y ago
    The key words are “reasonable” and “concentration risk”. Companies not run by shareholders but employees are often unremarkable but do well in long term. From time to time family owned companies choose that path.
- pavlov 3y ago
  MariaDB is out of cash and losing $12 million per quarter. Would you also throw in your savings next quarter to pay for the new losses? And the next quarter? And after that? Paying $30M today isn’t enough when the business is making heavy losses and nearly out of money. You need to have a plan to either raise a lot more money very soon, cut costs, or probably both. Employees aren’t well positioned to do either.

simonebrunozzi 3y ago

Might be that they already have a buyer, and want to get the whole company before turning it over for a profit.