3 ms·
The buyer shouldn't care if they are in place or not. In many ways it is better for the buyer because they know the employees didn't get a payout. Now the emp
by caseyf7 11y ago
The buyer shouldn't care if they are in place or not. In many ways it is better for the buyer because they know the employees didn't get a payout. Now the employees are more likely to stay on with the buyer instead of "calling in rich".
- jpmattia 11y ago> The buyer shouldn't care if they are in place or not Sure I do. Given a finite pot of money, I want 100% of it to go into incentive-based payouts. If the new company doesn't hit the goals, then I didn't lose so much money on the acquisition. If the money pot went to feathering the nest of the investors and the acquisition doesn't work, then I've lost the entire pot.
- caseyf7 11y agoThen you won't get the chance to be the buyer. If the business is doing well, owners will want you to pay for it and won't accept your integration risk. If the company is struggling, they won't give up their preferences.
- joshu 11y agoempirically, incentive payouts are a great way to cause lawsuits and get the founders to hate you.