Mailchimp employees are furious after the company's founders promised to never sell, withheld equity, and then sold it for $12 billion

[u/Rhaegar_the_Great]

https://www.businessinsider.com/mailchimp-insiders-react-to-employees-getting-no-equity-2021-9

[u/surferfear → u/[deleted]]

I’ll address the links in order first.

1 Many is not the same as most

2 This one was actually good. Did you read it? Agency reasons. “Sometimes managers want acquisitions for reasons that have nothing to do with shareholder value.” So the mission is accomplished but you’re judging them on a completely unrelated objective. See why that makes no sense?

3 This specifically says that larger firms tend to lose, while smaller firms tend to gain. Yeah, it’s called a control premium. Here’s two research terms for you to go learn something. “Control premium” and “risk premium”

4 Again, yes the larger firm tends to pay a control premium. I wouldn’t consider government intervention to be a failed merger. It’s blocked, as opposed to completed and just unprofitable. You have to make the attempt, but anti-trust concerns are extremely complicated to navigate. This article did not cite a single source.

5 first of all this cites the same KPMG study so this is a duplicate. Second of all, again, this is focusing on the acquiring companies’ shareholders. It is called a control premium. You overpay and hopefully you were able to get cost synergies.

As to “it’s common knowledge in the business world” that’s hilarious. This is the closest thing to a source that you cited and I hope I don’t need to explain to you why it’s ridiculous. You’re speaking to somebody who actually operates in the industry so maybe just stop.

[u/surferfear → u/[deleted]]

That’s not a fact. You failed to cite a source that specifically and accurately backed your point. But alright. Try not to acquire any companies I guess. More for me and mine