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.
Related Insights
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.
Granting stock options is only half the battle. To make equity a powerful motivator, leaders must constantly communicate a clear and believable narrative for a future liquidity event, such as an acquisition. This vision is what transforms paper ownership into a tangible and valuable incentive in the minds of employees.
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.
Don't default to a 50/50 split on day one. Instead, agree to formally discuss equity only after reaching a predefined milestone, like $10,000 in revenue. This allows you to base the split on demonstrated contribution and commitment, avoiding the resentment from premature, misaligned agreements.
For complex legal requests that increase your business risk or costs (e.g., unlimited liability, extensive insurance requirements), treat them as an additional negotiation lever. Explain that your standard pricing is based on a reasonable, collaborative risk profile. Accepting their terms changes that profile and will require adjusting the price accordingly.
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.
A business transitions from a founder-dependent "practice" to a scalable "enterprise" only when the founder shares wealth and recognition. Failing to provide equity and public credit prevents attracting and retaining the talent needed for growth, as top performers will leave to become owners themselves.
