Personally I wouldn't. I think a lot of entreprenurs get too emotionally attached to their businesses, which is fine if you plan on being around forever and passing it down through the family. For me though, starting a business is about making money and creating new opportunities. A buyout is an stepping stone to my next success.
I was in that situation and turned down the offer. The same buyer came back in a couple days with a fair offer and we accepted it. Had the buyer not come back, we would have been caught in the general market crash and the value of our company would have shrunk. But nobody knew that at the time, and I would not have regretted turning the offer down. I wasn't in a hurry to sell and there would have been other opportunities down the road.
Just like buying a house, you shouldn't get too attached to an offer or buyer until the ink is dry on the signatures. Keep your options open and be ready to walk away even at the last minute; if you don't maintain that perspective you lose control of the process and become vulnerable to last-minute deal changes. Don't let buyers put things in terms of how much money you'll make, keep it focused on what the company is worth and whether it's the right strategic move for the company.
Have you had this conversation with your partners?
This is actually the one sticking point with my partner. He has "mega bucks" on his mind, but if an offer comes through in 6 months for mid 6 figures+, I would be inclined to take it unless we have some serious traction. Not enough to make you rich, but enough to bootstrap you better for the next challenge :)
well what is the true "economic cost"? :D rather, is it going to set you for a while? how do you define the "true" value (apart form a gut feeling or using made up projection numbers)?
All transactions are made on the principle that what you are giving is worth (to you) less than what you are receiving in return. All of them. No exceptions.
If you think that the you are rejecting an offer just because of pride, than it your adding the value of it to the transaction price.
If you do however think that what you have really is worth more than the value offered, you'd refuse.
It depends on your financial situation. How much money do you think will make you happy? If you hold out for more, even if you make it, will your life significantly improve? What are the chances of ending up with nothing?
I'm a swing for the fences type of guy, but I'd have a hard time passing up any offer that hit my minimum number. That's why I think investors should let founders of companies take money off the table at a certain point. It gives them more desire to go for the big score, knowing that even if they fail, they're still set.
Matt I was hoping you would give a nice poker analogy here :)
My brother is a pretty good player, but he is quick to 'chop'. In fact I mock him all the time for it, but it really depends on what your comfort level is. At a certain point it is not desirable to take exchange risk for reward. Inevitably whenever you wish to get out of the game, you are going to have to take a discounted rate. In poker, if the final 2 guys chop due to the highly top-heavy prize structure, you are obviously going to take some sort of discount.
Chopping does work similarly. I always had a no chopping policy though, because pretty much any tournament with a life-changing prize is televised, and therefore chopping is banned.
In fact, poker tournaments in general have the concept of chip devaluation, which is fairly similar to how money works in real life.
this is the crux. will it make your life any better?
I'd say the law of diminishing returns applies here. 1 million will make you happy because you don't have to work anymore, 2 million will make you happier, but not twice as happy.
Do you really think 1 million means you don't have to work any more? 1 million is 10.000 per month for less than ten years. Unless you invest them I'm not sure you can't stop working forever if you have that amount of money.
I do. Put the million in a savings account, move to an affordable area and rent, or purchase a living space and bank the rest, then live (modestly) off the interest. Or if you can tolerate greater risk, pursue investments with higher returns, and/or expatriate yourself.
The question is, could you stop working and retain your sanity? I wonder about people who achieve success too early in life--they have many years ahead of them and much to learn, and wealth in some ways may be a hindrance.
People undervalue $1 million (or similar numbers) incredibly. It doesn't mean you don't have to work, but it pays for just about all of the things you end up working the first 15 years of your life for - house, furniture, "stuff". Once you've purchased all that crap, any money you make over and above that actually seems like a lot more because it's not going toward buying couches and bedroom sets.
I made my first million when I was 22, and though it didn't keep me from working ever again, it basically paid for all of the things I needed. Anything beyond that has been incremental gains. It's a lifestyle changing amount of money.
I used to think that I needed to make enough money so I would not have to worry about working.
But anyway you should always produce (See pg essays). So the thing about money is not to solve the problem now, but to be able to have enough resources so you can have more freedom on deciding what to work on. If I am lucky, I should be able to work until I die.
5% interest (which is meager) is 50,000 a year without touching the million itself.
after taxes it isn't a fantastic salary but anyone who can't live on it is living in some kind of fantasy land.
do 8-10% and you're talking serious money for no work.
I know people that tell me they can not live on less than 100,000 a year. If i could I would send them to ethiopoia, one way.
One million with no investment wouldn't last you long, but only a retard would stick it under their pillow. It's trivial to earn 5% and live off of the $50k in much of the country. That's the worst case and assumes no effort at all.
This goes to an area where economics hasn't caught up to reality yet. If you watch Deal or No Deal, many economists would say contestants are making a mistake (being irrational, unlike the ideal homo economicus) when they accept a deal that is significantly lower than the average value of the cases remaining.
What they miss is that dollars offer diminishing returns at scale, so the decision is rational. Going from 0 to 100,000 dollars is very different life-style wise than 3 million to 3,100,000. Because those first dollars are "worth" so much more, and because the upside of the best outcome is not worth as much proportionally, the decision is rational (although people are often being irrational in other ways in this game).
In your case, I suggest you consider your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and estimate their interest, then consider countering. You can only negotiate your "best deal" when you're willing to walk away.
If you're not willing to walk, you play it safe and "make a deal."
Edit: Keep in mind, if you counter, the worst they can say is no, and you can often still acquiesce to their original offer.
"The implicit assumption of conventional economics is that the only relevant metric is the magnitude of the absolute change in expenditure." I'm not the first person to say this:
I'm no economist, I just took a few units a while ago, but I'm pretty sure that's not an implicit assumption, because marginal utility is an important part of economics.
In fact the article you linked to says exactly that:
"All of the above effects can be expressed in terms of the utility function of money, and, in particular, not regarding money as a linear measure of utility. In other words, if money has diminishing marginal utility, then each dollar is worth less than the one before it. To use the example before, the first $1000 might be worth $1000 to a person, and the second $1000 worth only $950 (in terms of utility). This would not be "loss aversion" but just a phenomenon adequately explained by economic theory."
At that point in the link they're going over counter-arguments to the standard line.
Anyhow, I agree marginal utility is well understood by economists, just disagree that that is the standard way dollars themselves are viewed in classic economic theory. And perhaps I over-reached when I built my straw economist.
Are there other people involved whose interests might be worth considering?
I'm thinking of someone with a much smaller share. As someone has pointed out, the 100% increase from 50k to 100k is different than the 100% increase from $1M to $2M.
It depends entirely on how much you enjoy being a bigshot. Being rich doesn't make you an alpha male, but being an executive, maybe even CEO, of a company does just that.
If it's something you're running out of your mom's basement, well...
I think one way to look at this is from an NPV (Net Present Value) perspective. If you work on a project where your cost to implement it is $x, but the reason you decide to undertake the project is because you think it's value is >$x+$1 and someone comes and offers you (exactly) $x+$1, but still less than you thought you would get, would it be a good sale? From a pure NPV perspective, if there were no other, better offers out there, the $x+$1 sale should be made.
The thing that really happens in life is that in addition to NPV, there's this little thing called pride, and when you think something is worth more that what someone else thinks its worth, it's sometimes hard to step back and say maybe they're right and I'm wrong.
Here's the thing to ask yourself: Do you think there's someone out there that will reasonably pay you more than the $x+$1 you have an offer for. If so, hold out. If not, sell.
there is only one reason to sell a business, YOU WANT OUT.
if you are profitable and you want out, you have to ask; "will this enable me to do my next activity?" if not, then don't sell yet you are much better off growing your business.
if you are not profitable and you want out, well i would ask; "Will this cover my effort on this project?"
I have a personal number in my head that covers my anticipated yearly expenses, plus has room in there to keep adding to savings. above that amount in wealth i very well may sell my first business, if i will find my next idea more desirable to pursue.
No, I think feeling undervalued will be a constant for anybody who's most interested in innovation. Now, if you are in it for money then sure the possibility exists for you to walk away from a deal someday thinking "Damn, I REALLY robbed 'em blind on that one!" But I don't think those of us that do things with passion because we believe in an idea will ever feel that money can every truly put a full value on our vision.
Plenty of people might "feel" their company is undervalued when the offer may in fact be fair. Decisions like this should be based more on the numbers rather than "your gut feeling" - assuming your goal is to maximize wealth. If your life goals are tied up with the mission of your business, then by all means follow your passion.
With the numbers I tend to play with, if it's enough to live off the interest comfortably for the rest of my life, sure. Then I can work on whatever I want with my time rather than avoiding projects because of the assumed inattention they would receive.
If the company has more potential than the offer, most likely no.
The real question is... will this buyout impact your life they way you want it to? ...or will you be miserable or somehow transformed into someone you don't want to be as a result?
I guess it all comes down to one's priorities. If you put your ego and pride above all else then I don't think any amount of money will ever be enough to quench your self-obsession.
On the other hand, if you have the chance to become comfortably rich and essentially free then why not?
Of course there is a third (fourth, fifth and so on) variation. Perhaps it has nothing to do with pride or money, perhaps you enjoy the work that you do so much that being rich is not something you can enjoy with the same amount of passion.
48 comments
[ 1.1 ms ] story [ 265 ms ] threadIf it's enough to set you for life, then I'd be inclined to take it and move onto the next challenge in life.
Just like buying a house, you shouldn't get too attached to an offer or buyer until the ink is dry on the signatures. Keep your options open and be ready to walk away even at the last minute; if you don't maintain that perspective you lose control of the process and become vulnerable to last-minute deal changes. Don't let buyers put things in terms of how much money you'll make, keep it focused on what the company is worth and whether it's the right strategic move for the company.
This is actually the one sticking point with my partner. He has "mega bucks" on his mind, but if an offer comes through in 6 months for mid 6 figures+, I would be inclined to take it unless we have some serious traction. Not enough to make you rich, but enough to bootstrap you better for the next challenge :)
All transactions are made on the principle that what you are giving is worth (to you) less than what you are receiving in return. All of them. No exceptions.
If you think that the you are rejecting an offer just because of pride, than it your adding the value of it to the transaction price.
If you do however think that what you have really is worth more than the value offered, you'd refuse.
Unless, of course, you're already working on your life's mission :)
I'm a swing for the fences type of guy, but I'd have a hard time passing up any offer that hit my minimum number. That's why I think investors should let founders of companies take money off the table at a certain point. It gives them more desire to go for the big score, knowing that even if they fail, they're still set.
My brother is a pretty good player, but he is quick to 'chop'. In fact I mock him all the time for it, but it really depends on what your comfort level is. At a certain point it is not desirable to take exchange risk for reward. Inevitably whenever you wish to get out of the game, you are going to have to take a discounted rate. In poker, if the final 2 guys chop due to the highly top-heavy prize structure, you are obviously going to take some sort of discount.
In fact, poker tournaments in general have the concept of chip devaluation, which is fairly similar to how money works in real life.
Also, diversification is a decent passive strategy, but not one that you'd take if you were intent on making substantial gains.
As Warren Buffet says, "no one ever got rich on their seventh best bet."
The question is, could you stop working and retain your sanity? I wonder about people who achieve success too early in life--they have many years ahead of them and much to learn, and wealth in some ways may be a hindrance.
I made my first million when I was 22, and though it didn't keep me from working ever again, it basically paid for all of the things I needed. Anything beyond that has been incremental gains. It's a lifestyle changing amount of money.
But anyway you should always produce (See pg essays). So the thing about money is not to solve the problem now, but to be able to have enough resources so you can have more freedom on deciding what to work on. If I am lucky, I should be able to work until I die.
do 8-10% and you're talking serious money for no work.
I know people that tell me they can not live on less than 100,000 a year. If i could I would send them to ethiopoia, one way.
What they miss is that dollars offer diminishing returns at scale, so the decision is rational. Going from 0 to 100,000 dollars is very different life-style wise than 3 million to 3,100,000. Because those first dollars are "worth" so much more, and because the upside of the best outcome is not worth as much proportionally, the decision is rational (although people are often being irrational in other ways in this game).
In your case, I suggest you consider your BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) and estimate their interest, then consider countering. You can only negotiate your "best deal" when you're willing to walk away. If you're not willing to walk, you play it safe and "make a deal."
Edit: Keep in mind, if you counter, the worst they can say is no, and you can often still acquiesce to their original offer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiate...
"Maximize your utility function, not the money, moron!"
(I'm not an economist, but I talk like one.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_aversion#Can_loss_aversion...
In fact the article you linked to says exactly that:
"All of the above effects can be expressed in terms of the utility function of money, and, in particular, not regarding money as a linear measure of utility. In other words, if money has diminishing marginal utility, then each dollar is worth less than the one before it. To use the example before, the first $1000 might be worth $1000 to a person, and the second $1000 worth only $950 (in terms of utility). This would not be "loss aversion" but just a phenomenon adequately explained by economic theory."
Anyhow, I agree marginal utility is well understood by economists, just disagree that that is the standard way dollars themselves are viewed in classic economic theory. And perhaps I over-reached when I built my straw economist.
I'm thinking of someone with a much smaller share. As someone has pointed out, the 100% increase from 50k to 100k is different than the 100% increase from $1M to $2M.
If it's something you're running out of your mom's basement, well...
The thing that really happens in life is that in addition to NPV, there's this little thing called pride, and when you think something is worth more that what someone else thinks its worth, it's sometimes hard to step back and say maybe they're right and I'm wrong.
Here's the thing to ask yourself: Do you think there's someone out there that will reasonably pay you more than the $x+$1 you have an offer for. If so, hold out. If not, sell.
if you are profitable and you want out, you have to ask; "will this enable me to do my next activity?" if not, then don't sell yet you are much better off growing your business.
if you are not profitable and you want out, well i would ask; "Will this cover my effort on this project?"
I have a personal number in my head that covers my anticipated yearly expenses, plus has room in there to keep adding to savings. above that amount in wealth i very well may sell my first business, if i will find my next idea more desirable to pursue.
If the company has more potential than the offer, most likely no.
The real question is... will this buyout impact your life they way you want it to? ...or will you be miserable or somehow transformed into someone you don't want to be as a result?
On the other hand, if you have the chance to become comfortably rich and essentially free then why not?
Of course there is a third (fourth, fifth and so on) variation. Perhaps it has nothing to do with pride or money, perhaps you enjoy the work that you do so much that being rich is not something you can enjoy with the same amount of passion.
I'd probably take the money though.