May 9, 2008 4:00 AM PDT

The founder's dilemma: How to play the final sale

You're sitting in a conference room negotiating the sale of your company, still haggling at the 11th hour over a price. But wait: Should you even be there to begin with?

Jerry Yang and David Filo apparently thought so. They flew up to Seattle last weekend to meet Steve Ballmer and Kevin Johnson at the Sea-Tac airport in a failed last-ditch attempt to reach a deal with Microsoft.

Mitch Kapor

(Credit: Mitch Kapor)

This is the part where you're supposed to intone that it's not personal. (Cue The Godfather theme.) Yahoo's co-founders had their numbers crunchers nearby, but listening to Microsoft's blustering CEO belittle their demand to put a higher price on their life's work, could it really remain all business?

"It's too big of an issue, too big of a decision to make as a founder," said Mitch Kapor, who founded Lotus Development Corp., which was sold to IBM in 1995. "The CEO makes the ultimate recommendation to the board of directors, but it's not like selling something on eBay."

"At some point in the discussion," he continued, "the principals do have to sit down for a private conversation. But that neither ought to be the main flow of things or the final definitive meeting. These companies are too big and there are too many points of view to consider. If you're not fully embracing everyone on your side, you're probably not making the best decision."

Marc Cuban, who sold Broadcast.com to Yahoo in 1999 for $4.9 billion in stock, says that the range of emotions will hinge on myriad factors. But in an e-mail exchange, Cuban had a black-and-white reaction to any suggestion the give-and-take should get left to a trusted lieutenant.

Mark Cuban

(Credit: CNET)

Are you serious? "Your life's work? That is easily the stupidest thing you could (do). (Yang and Filo) did the exact right thing sitting with Steve."

Maybe so, but Cuban also allowed that the emotional ups and downs involved in finalizing a sale will vary depending upon who's doing the negotiating.

"As far as the range of emotions, it depends on the individual person's goals for the company. If the company is you, it's one approach. If it's purely a business, another. If you have goals outside of the office, another."

Marc Fleury, the creator of JBoss, an open-source Java application server, sold his company to Red Hat in 2006 for $350 million in cash and stock. On the surface, at least, he had no problem hearing that Yahoo's co-founders sat in the room for one last meeting.

"I don't think that was the mistake," he said. "However, deals are finicky because so much depends on people. You are looking at a random sequence of events with a random output, where all the emotions come in. It is not a mistake; it is just the nature of the beast. Deals are 'stochastic' and not just the result of well thought- out machines."

This is why so much high-priced talent on Wall Street gladly volunteers to play the role of the dedicated heavy--if that's what it takes to fetch the best price--in any negotiation.

"That's part of the sales pitch of the investment bankers. They say, let them be the bad guy," says Scott Heiferman, the founder of Fotolog (bought last year by France-based Hi-Media Group for a combination of cash and stock worth $90 million) as well as iTraffic one of the first online ad agencies, which was sold to Agency.com for about $50 million in stock and cash.

Scott Heiferman

(Credit: Meetup.com)

"But there's nothing necessarily wrong with a (founder) who has perspective," added Heiferman, who is also co-founder and CEO of Meetup.com. "You've got a vested interest so why shouldn't you have a principal at the table? Still, I do understand the argument that it might be too loaded for you with not seeing clearly because of all the blood, sweat, and tears that went into the company."

Crunch time will do that. And for lot of founders, he says, it calls into question what they want out of the company in terms of a legacy.

"I would suspect that Jerry Yang was thinking about the legacy that is Yahoo in the long term," he said. "The importance of any company to (a founder) should give you the guts to say, 'No, that isn't the right deal.' In other words, it means something to you. It's not just a notch on a bed post for some investment banker."

That still may not be enough to shield Yang and Filo from getting an earful from investors unhappy about losing Microsoft's buyout offer. Then again, most of them never were faced with the sale of a company they started.

Recent posts from Coop's Corner
Social graphs just wanna be free, but will they ever be?
Why old media is running scared of Google
This VC forecast scares the pants off of me
Another Twitter outage: Sound the alarms!
Biting the hand that feeds you: Cuban vs. Yahoo
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 10 comments (Page 1 of 1)
by i_made_this May 9, 2008 9:54 AM PDT
Coop, the examples you give, in fairness, are not comparable. They all were small, privately held companies - "family businesses." Yahoo is nothing of the sort. But your theme is valid - Yahoo blew its fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders bad. They should have sold in a heartbeat, just as Legg Mason pressed them to do. Under SEC regs, the shareholders have the ammo now to bring a class action against Yahoo and wring value out of a company which has been mismanaged since day one. If Yang and crew think they had headaches dealing with Microsoft's offer, they ain't seen nothing yet. At least that's my forecast - a shareholder revolt lead by Bill Miller and crew, who will strip the company bare and rightly so. Just my two cents.
Reply to this comment View reply
by engelsol May 9, 2008 9:59 AM PDT
Great article! this is really the kind of content that made Cnet big and special... More like this and the CNET future would be better.
Reply to this comment
by someguy999 May 9, 2008 11:35 AM PDT
I have to agree with the previous posters... the comparisons aren't really comparative when the largest company is broadcast.com and then the next size company is only 350M. A perspective from mergers like hp/compaq (or even oracle/peoplesoft) would be more interesting given their similar magnitude.
Reply to this comment
by mcwong2000 May 9, 2008 4:32 PM PDT
I agree w/Engelsol; this is a good, original article. Nice job, Coop.
Reply to this comment
by davidwillisw May 9, 2008 7:36 PM PDT
maybe i'm wrong in my thoughts but doesn't thie company belong to the shreholders now??no matter who started it.
Reply to this comment View reply
by The_Decider May 11, 2008 1:51 PM PDT
The founder will have the best interests of his/her company at heart. Shareholders are only looking for a fast buck. Who is in a better position? Gee, that is a tough one. Both MS and Yahoo would have been in a world of hurt had Yahoo sold out. The greedy investors crying now would have been really crying in 4 years. Yahoo made the correct decision for Yahoo. That is what matters. Yahoo is considerably better off now than 6 months ago and are looking even stronger given the recent forays in partnership. The idiots who lost money last week are idiots. They didn't have a clue what they were doing. The long term investors are happy because Yahoo's stock price is considerably higher than it was in January and is looking like it will steady increase now that it had a fire lit under it. This is a rare example of Ballmers incompetence not destroying something. Of course, had Yahoo sold out, his track record of ruining everything would still be intact. That Ballmer and MS wanted to buy Yahoo is just another example of how MS has lost its way and has no idea how to try to get its relevance back in a world were the desktop isn't quite as important as it once was. The only shareholders that need to be complaining are MS shareholders.
Reply to this comment
by christianhgross May 11, 2008 2:53 PM PDT
>The founder will have the best interests of his/her company at heart. Shareholders are only looking for a fast buck. Who is in a better position? Yes shareholders might want a fast buck. BUT as the nature of the beast is, Yang has around 10% of the company. Thus while he might be a shareholder he is not the majority and hence has to do what the shareholders want. Jerry Yang acted completely wrong! > maybe i'm wrong in my thoughts but doesn't thie company belong to the shreholders now??no matter who started it. If Jerry Yang owned 50.1% of the company he could do what he wanted to, but he doesn't and hence its NOT HIS COMPANY...
Reply to this comment View reply
Powered by Jive Software
advertisement
  • About Coop's Corner

  • Charles Cooper has covered technology and business for over 25 years. A graduate of Queens College and Columbia University, Cooper began his career in journalism at the Associated Press before moving to technology coverage. Over the years, he has worked at Computer & Software News, Computer Shopper, PC Week, ZDNet News and now, CNET News.com. He received the Excellence in Journalism award from the Northern California branch of the Society for Professional Journalists for column writing.

Add this feed to your online news reader
Google
Yahoo
MSN

Most popular stories

  1. Images: Microsoft telescope puts universe on your desktop

  2. Photos: Cracking open the Atari 2600

  3. This VC forecast scares the pants off of me

  4. End of Intel, AMD duopoly near? Via readies Isaiah chip

  5. Photos: Microsoft previews 2008 Xbox games

Latest tech news headlines

Featured blogs

Beyond Binary by Ina Fried

Defense in Depth by Robert Vamosi

Geek Gestalt by Daniel Terdiman

Green Tech

One More Thing by Tom Krazit

Outside the Lines by Dan Farber

The Iconoclast by Declan McCullagh

The Social by Caroline McCarthy

Underexposed by Stephen Shankland

Resource center from News.com sponsors

advertisement
On ZDNet: Why can't Unix and Linux just get along?
Advanced
search
Advanced
search
Visit other CNET Networks sites: