3 ms·
Which brings up the question: what's the point of keeping the original company? You're unlikely to have as much equity in a company with so much history as oppo
by SeoxyS 12y ago
Which brings up the question: what's the point of keeping the original company? You're unlikely to have as much equity in a company with so much history as opposed to if you were to found a new company.
This reminds me somewhat of Warren Buffet's biggest mistake, which was that he had made a lousy investment into a Textile-manufacturing company called Berkshire Hathaway. Having a disagreement with its CEO; he acquired a majority stake of the company, and fired its CEO out of spite. But he couldn't get all the stock; and when he completely reshaped the company into what it is today, half of the value he created ended up going to the company's original stockholders, instead of himself as it would have, had he started from scratch with his own company.
- femto 12y agoThe original company has a known brand (Vinton), and that opens doors.
- TheZenPsycho 12y agoNo, it changed the name to Laika.
- SeoxyS 12y agoNike, arguably, is a bigger and more door-opening brand than Vinton.
- chinpokomon 12y agoIn the world of Claymation, what does an athletic shoe company know?