Loading...
Answers
MenuHow does a startup go about getting acqui-hired?
This question has no further details.
Answers
Here are two possible avenues:
(a) ExitRound
(b) Listing profiles as team of developers available for hire together on DeveloperAuction
You won't get anywhere if it's clear that getting bought is your end goal. The acquisition, to a buyer, is a beginning rather than an end for them, and an entrepreneur who clearly just wants to cash out is going to be very unappealing to them. What you need to project to potential buyers -- and to everyone, frankly, because everyone might *know* a potential buyer or provide a testimonial or reference for you -- is your team's raw talent and ability to be part of a productive team.
Reputation is really everything in the acqui-hire space. No company will make a talent acquisition unless it really, really knows and understands the talent. I believe many of Twitter's acqui-hires have been of start-ups that were already vendors or contractors at Twitter, and quite a few of Facebook's acqui-hires were start-ups founded by people who had known the Facebook founding team for years.
I would highly recommend Exitround to any founder who isn't tapped into the kind of network that easily leads to a talent acquisition by Google or Facebook. I recommend this in part because the founding team is prioritizing the ability for founders and potential buyers to connect across industries. Their system, though very new, aims to ultimately create ways to make introductions and facilitate deals between companies that would probably never meet one another otherwise -- something that's increasingly appealing seeing that there are many large non-tech companies that may see acqui-hiring as the best way to build out a new digital product division.
Acqui-hires are more likely to come from strong relationships between either the founders or investors having strong relationships with the decision-makers or influencers at the acquiring company.
But the more you *aspire* to get acqui-hired, the less likely you will achieve that outcome (without strong relationships in place).
I'd offer a brief call to understand your business and what progress you've made to date and understand your motivations in selling and help you explore your options.
An acqui-hire basically is a fancy way to say your company is being bought predominantly for the fabulous team you have assembled and not for the product/service you were (trying) to bring to market. This can be tidier than a wind-down process for a failing company, but often signals a distressed sale. Relatively recent data suggests that most acqui-hires are of companies that have raised less than $5M of outside funding and anecdotal data suggests most of these companies were not able to get additional funding needed to continue. Often, the business acquired in the process is shut down after the transaction. Payment may be in the form of cash, buyer stock or a mix of both.
This can vary, but it is typically an acquisition of stock or assets, with the bulk of the purchase price being earmarked for employee packages (retention and otherwise). In cases where the buyer truly only wants the team, they may simply sign a release agreement where the company agrees, in exchange for the deal payment, to release the buyer for hiring the employees and possibly a defensive license agreement of the company’s IP. The term sheets are often “light” on terms. In terms of pricing, Buyers frequently express the price on a “per head” or “per engineer” basis, and the going rate seems to be anywhere from a few hundred thousand to two million per head. In many of these deals, the investors recoup less than their investment.
The acqui-hire arrangement is a mixture of Intellectual Property assignments, transfer of various web assets and an employment agreement:
1. Asset purchase of typically tech related assets of the start-up: websites, domains, etc. (Optional). Sometimes, the acquihiring entity may not be interested in any of these.
2. Intellectual property assignment in the work produced by the team (this may not always be part of the deal though). This is important if the team will continue to work on same technology or similar product and will use what they created in the start-up as a base or use a part of that technology.
3. A smooth transition of the team from one entity to another is the focus. They may be paid a joining bonus or given small stakes or ESOPs as a part of the deal. Usually, their compensation is the main focus of the negotiations.
4. Consideration for all the work and the assets mentioned above, it can be a lump sum amount that can be paid to the promoters. Usually, investors and founders don’t get much out of such a transaction though. Founders are usually glad that their team is going to be gainfully employed and not face uncertainty and that they may get to work together on interesting projects. Often that is the biggest takeaway for the start-up founders.
The deal structure discussed above works irrespective of what business structure the target company uses. If it is a private limited company, it is not essential for its shares to be acquired by the acquirer. However, this decision is mainly dependent on any stamp duty or tax benefit for the companies involved.
Further, it goes unsaid that the target company has no debts or they are repaid by the time it is getting acquired or the acquirer is well aware of these debts and has agreed to pay them or the promoters will make sure that they repay the debts on their own. If the target company is not being acquired, liabilities may remain in that entity and simply the team is hired by the acquihiring company which therefore takes no responsibility for existing debts of the target. Several employment contracts are also executed of all the team members of the acquiring company, there are several terms mentioned in these contracts:
1. A minimum period of employment clause (say one or two years)
2. A non-compete clause for the promoters
3. Vesting of the acquirer’s or its parent company’s shares
What kind of a deal structure are we talking about?
The deal structure mainly depends on how valuable the new technology is to the company and what it brings to the table. The start-ups are typically acquired on a price that is lesser than their valuation. These structures can be of various forms:
1. They can be cash deals (here) or
2. Founders are made to run their start-ups as a subsidiary of the big business house (here). This however is quite unusual in acquihiring scenario.
Other aspects regarding the deal
There must be an approval from the board of directors and management from the Acquirer’s company. However, even this is not always necessary. One may simply hire the employees for executing acquihiring provided that the acquiring company is not interested in anything else other than the talent. Even the technology from the old company can be acquired if necessary by executing a simple assignment contract which may or may not require board and shareholders’ approval depending on what is written in constitutional documents of the company (AoA) and Shareholders’ Agreement, if any.
Besides if you do have any questions give me a call: https://clarity.fm/joy-brotonath
Related Questions
-
What legal precautions can I take to make sure nobody steals my startup idea?
I've discussed ideas with hundreds of startups, I've been involved in about a dozen startups, my business is at $1M+ revenue. The bad news is, there is no good way to protect ideas. The good news is, in the vast majority of cases you don't really need to. If you're talking to people about your idea, you could ask them to sign an NDA ("Non Disclosure Agreement"), but NDAs are notoriously hard to enforce, and a lot of experienced startup people wouldn't sign them. For example, if you asked me to sign an NDA before we discussed your Idea, I'd tell you "thanks, but no thanks". This is probably the right place though to give the FriendDA an honorable mention: http://friendda.org/. Generally, I'd like to encourage you to share your Ideas freely. Even though telling people an idea is not completely without risk, generally the rewards from open discussions greatly outweigh the risks. Most startups fail because they build something nobody wants. Talking to people early, especially people who are the intended users/customers for your idea can be a great way to protect yourself from that risk, which is considerably higher than the risk of someone taking off with your idea. Another general note, is that while ideas matter, I would generally advise you to get into startup for which you can generate a lot of value beyond the idea. One indicator for a good match between a founder and a startup is the answer to the question: "why is that founder uniquely positioned to execute the idea well". The best way to protect yourself from competition is to build a product that other people would have a hard time building, even if they had 'the idea'. These are usually startups which contain lots of hard challenges on the way from the idea to the business, and if you can convincingly explain why you can probably solve those challenges while others would have a hard time, you're on the right path. If you have any further questions, I'd be happy to set up a call. Good luck.DK
-
What is a better title for a startup head....Founder or CEO? Are there any pros/cons to certain titles?
The previous answers given here are great, but I've copied a trick from legendary investor Monish Pabrai that I've used in previous startups that seems to work wonders -- especially if your company does direct B2B sales. Many Founders/ CEOs are hung up on having the Founder/ CEO/ President title. As others have mentioned, those titles have become somewhat devalued in today's world -- especially if you are in a sales meeting with a large organization. Many purchasing agents at large organizations are bombarded by Founders/ CEOs/ Presidents visiting them all day. This conveys the image that a) your company is relatively small (the CEO of GM never personally sells you a car) and b) you are probably the most knowledgeable person in the organization about your product, but once you land the account the client company will mostly be dealing with newly hired second level staff. Monish recommends that Founder/ CEOs hand out a business card that has the title "Head of Sales" or "VP of Sales". By working in the Head of Sales role, and by your ability to speak knowledgeably about the product, you will convey the message that a) every person in the organization is very knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the product (even the sales guys) and b) you will personally be available to answer the client's questions over the long run. I've used this effectively many times myself.VR
-
For every success story in Silicon Valley, how many are there that fail?
It all depends on what one decides to be a definition of a "success story." For some entrepreneurs, it might be getting acqui-hired, for some -- a $10M exit, for some -- a $200M exit, and for others -- an IPO. Based on the numbers I have anecdotally heard in conversations over the last decade or so, VCs fund about 1 in 350 ventures they see, and of all of these funded ventures, only about 1 in 10 become really successful (i.e. have a big exit or a successful IPO.) So you are looking at a 1 in 3500 chance of eventual venture success among all of the companies that try to get VC funding. (To put this number in perspective, US VCs invest in about 3000-3500 companies every year.) In addition, there might be a few others (say, maybe another 1-2 in every 10 companies that get VC investments) that get "decent" exits along the way, and hence could be categorized as somewhat successful depending on, again, how one chooses to define what qualifies as a "success story." Finally, there might also be companies that may never need or get around to seeking VC funding. One can, of course, find holes in the simplifying assumptions I have made here, but it doesn't really matter if that number instead is 1 in 1000 or 1 in 10000. The basic point being made here is just that the odds are heavily stacked against new ventures being successful. But that's also one of the distinguishing characteristics of entrepreneurs -- to go ahead and try to bring their idea to life despite the heavy odds. Sources of some of the numbers: http://www.nvca.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ven... https://www.pwcmoneytree.com/MTP... http://paulgraham.com/future.html Here are others' calculations of the odds that lead to a similar conclusion: 1.Dear Entrepreneurs: Here's How Bad Your Odds Of Success Are http://www.businessinsider.com/startup-odds-of-success-2013-5 2.Why 99.997% Of Entrepreneurs May Want To Postpone Or Avoid VC -- Even If You Can Get It http://www.forbes.com/sites/dileeprao/2013/07/29/why-99-997-of-entrepreneurs-may-want-to-postpone-or-avoid-vc-even-if-you-can-get-it/MB
-
How much equity should I give an engineer who I'm asking to join my company as a co-founder? (He'll be receiving a salary, too, and I'm self-funding)
You will find a lot of different views on equity split. I haven't found a silver bullet. My preference/experience is for: 1. Unequal shares because one person needs to be the ultimate decision maker (even if it's 1% difference). I have found that I have never had to use that card because we are always rational about this (and I think us being rational is driven because we don't want a person to always pull that card cause it's a shitty card to pull) 2. When it comes to how much equity, I like Paul Graham's approach best: if I started the business by myself, I would own 100% of the equity; if xxx joined me, he/she would increase my chances of success by 40% (40% is just an example) at this moment in time. Therefore, I should give him/her 40% of the company (http://paulgraham.com/equity.html) 3. In terms of range, it could go between (15-49%) depending on the level of skill. But anything less than 15%, I would personally not feel like a cofounder 4. Regarding salary and the fact that you will pay him/her, that's tricky but a simple way to think about it: If an outside investor were to invest the equivalent of a salary at this exact moment into the startup, what % of the company would they get? (this may lowball it if you think the valuation is high but then again if you think you could get a high valuation for a company with no MVP, then you should go raise money) One extra thing for you to noodle on: given you are not technical, I would make sure a friend you trust (and who's technical) help you evaluate the skill of your (potential) cofounder. It will help stay calibrated given you really like this person.MR
-
How much equity should I ask as a C-level executive in a new startup ?
As you may suspect, there really isn't a hard and fast answer. You can review averages to see that a CEO typically becomes a major shareholder in a startup, but your role and renumeration will be based on the perceived value you bring to the organization. You value someone's contribution through equity when you think that they will be able to add long-term benefits, you would prefer that they don't move company part way through the process, and to keep them from being enticed by a better salary (a reason for equity tied to a vesting arrangement). Another reason is when the company doesn't have salary money available but the potential is very strong. In this situation you should be especially diligent in your analysis because you will realize that even the best laid plans sometimes fall completely short. So to get the best mix, you have to be very real about the company's long-term growth potential, your role in achieving it, and the current liquidity necessary to run the operations. It should also be realized that equity needs to be distributed. You cannot distribute 110% and having your cap table recalculated such that your 5% turns into 1% in order to make room for the newly hired head of technology is rather demotivating for the team. Equity should be used to entice a valuable person to join, stay, and contribute. It should not be used in leu of salary that allows an employee to pay their bills. So, like a lot of questions, the answer is really, it depends. Analyzing the true picture of your long-term potential will allow you to more easily determine the correct mix.DH
the startups.com platform
Copyright © 2025 Startups.com. All rights reserved.