Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

How should acquirers behave?

I've thought for a while that one thing that could change the dynamic is price. It doesn't make too much sense to me that a 5 month old company with $50K in it should go for more than $1M. That is the other side to the assholedom - the exuberant prices paid for young companies.

The price can and should change as the product and team grow, so this is mainly a comment about very young companies.



Why should inputs ("5 months old, $50K in") cap valuation when something unique has been created?

That'd be like setting prices by costs rather than value!


Because the buyer could build the technology themselves for $50K in 5 months. (Okay, $100K in 10 months, given the efficiency of large corporations.)


Assuming the buyer has the programming talent and vision to create it, and the managers to allow something "crazy" to be built. That's rare in large corporations.


And assuming that a 5-month delay wouldn't cost 10s-of-millions.


And assuming the startup in question has not acquired a few key patents. And assuming the startup made no unique-but-necessary technical decisions that can't be replicated without relying on information obtained under NDA.


I don't think that exuberant means what you think it means. Perhaps you meant exorbitant?


It should make sense if you keep the word Bubble in the back of your head. Most acquisitions are ridiculous, $20m to hire a team of 10 people and throw the technology away has become commonplace. The math doesn't work out except for panic buying "Let's make sure they don't aid our competition".




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

Search: