Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It really depends on the state of the company and potential earn outs, etc. So it is completely dependent on the situation.

I have personally taken less than market value. I would never do that again. I would suggest that a founders value is much higher to the acquiring company than it is to the market. Hence a higher market value. On the other hand you are worth what you negotiate. Their job is to negotiate the best deal for themselves.

Make sure that there are escape clauses if your liquidity depends on a promised liquidity event. Mine has not happened yet and may never happen. Also if earn outs depend on anything outside of your control make sure that if those events don't happen your earn out goals are adjusted accordingly. We missed an earn out by less than 10% . The acquiring company did not sign deals they committed to signing that would have facilitated at least 30% toward the earn out. Ouch.




I agree. I've taken a salary significantly less than market value after an acquisition and would never do it again. I actually think it caused other people at the company who weren't involved in the deal to discount my ongoing contribution. Whether that was true or not, you should always be paid what you are worth.

On earn-out, I've never seen a company actually hit their earn-out numbers. IMHO, they're usually set up to get the management or shareholders to accept a smaller valuation than they would otherwise. And the earn-out numbers are usually based on the best-case scenarios being presented by the company being acquired. ;) The scenarios were somewhat unrealistic, especially considering the major disruption of going through an acquisition, and possibly increased levels of big-company-bullshit it may take to get sales closed. In some cases, the fictional earnout values were obvious face saving measures for executives and the board.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: