Preparing a company for acquisition can lead founders to make short-term decisions that please the acquirer but undermine the brand's core agility, setting it up for failure post-sale. The focus shifts from longevity to a transaction.

In a counterintuitive move, The Laundress hired a banker recommended by their acquirer, Unilever. The logic was that large corporations prefer negotiating with known, tough entities, and this banker had a proven track record of extracting maximum value for founders.

Club Penguin's co-founder warns that accepting VC money creates immense pressure to become a billion-dollar company. This often crushes otherwise successful businesses that could have been profitable at a smaller scale, making founders worse off in the long run.

Founders should be wary of earn-out clauses. Acquirers can impose layers of pointless processes and overhead costs, tanking the profitability of a successful business and making it impossible for the founder to ever receive their earn-out payment.

When a founder faces a major acquisition offer, the pivotal question isn't just about valuation, but temperament. A board member should ask, "Are you built to be a public company CEO?" The intense stress and public scrutiny aren't for everyone. Pushing a founder who isn't an "IPO guy" to reject an offer can be a disastrous long-term decision.

The most lucrative exit for a startup is often not an IPO, but an M&A deal within an oligopolistic industry. When 3-4 major players exist, they can be forced into an irrational bidding war driven by the fear of a competitor acquiring the asset, leading to outcomes that are even better than going public.

When a company like Synthesia gets a $3B offer, founder and VC incentives decouple. For a founder with 10% equity, the lifestyle difference between a $300M exit and a potential $1B future exit is minimal. For a VC, that same 3.3x growth can mean the difference between a decent and a great fund return, making them far more willing to gamble.

Raising significant venture capital diluted founder Ty Haney's ownership to just 10%. When strategic disagreements arose with the board over growth, she lacked the decision-making control to steer the company, leading to an untenable situation and her forced departure.

The Laundress founder argues that celebrating multiple VC rounds is misguided. While seen as a "badge of honor," it means giving away control and equity. By bootstrapping, she retained majority ownership, contrasting the "sexy" VC narrative with the financial reality of keeping your company.