4 ms·
I don't understand authors who criticized the acquirer post acquisition. There is only one reason why you would sell: lots of money. You understand this going
by didip 3y ago
I don't understand authors who criticized the acquirer post acquisition.
There is only one reason why you would sell: lots of money. You understand this going into the transaction. Once the company is acquired, it's no longer yours.
And you understand very well why you sold to Google: Because they are so big that they can give you a lot of money. Unfortunately, a large company always has a lot of bureaucracy. Surely the author knows this.
That's it. No need to criticize, you got the money, you got to the finished line.
- leoh 3y agoIt’s because unless you’re pretty savvy and skeptical (albeit in a sophisticated way), your counterparts at Google are going to feed you all kinds of incredible, fanciful ideas about how things are going to be that don’t typically come to fruition. It’s hard to develop savviness and a sophisticated sort of skepticism (ie a kind that doesn’t merely border on cynicism). So it’s disappointing when one’s optimism is exploited. Which, Google, having gone through this sort of thing so many times — “knows” they are exploiting. I say “knows” because Google M&A know this stuff in spades. Whether it’s reported up is another matter; as to say “the company we acquired is unhappy” is to bring blame upon M&A folks who are just doing their jobs. Also see Judas Goat — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_goat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_goat