5 ms·

Agreed. Eager to see the reasoning behind the 'mix' concept now.

• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• supahfly_remix 15y ago
  There's a difference between getting paid in cash, paid in stock in a publicly-traded company (e.g., Google), and paid in stock in a privately-traded company. The latter cannot be turned into cash easily, and its valuation is determined by private parties behind closed doors rather than in an open market. Which would you rather have: $1 million cash and $34 million of SurveyMonkey stock or vice versa?
• nostrademons 15y ago
  Privately-held stock is riskier, because it's basically worthless until the acquirer has its own exit event. When you sell your company for stock, you're basically just trading stock in your company for stock in the acquirer. If the acquirer tanks before exiting, your shares are just as worthless as if you'd tanked before exiting. Now, it can sometimes work out - I doubt Evan Williams is complaining about selling Blogger to pre-IPO Google for (presumably - terms were never disclosed) stock. But in other cases, I'm not sure the founders did so well - SixApart, for example, isn't quite the darling it was when it purchased LiveJournal in 2005.