Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

"We kind of joke that we’re a tech company that happens to have a banking license."

This is one of those quotes that can look really bad in hindsight if something goes wrong



sort by: page size:

> Who is really going to be interested in building on top of tech owned by a (new, unknown, regional) bank?

As opposed to building on top of tech "owned" by a small software consultancy? Perhaps I simply lack imagination, but how is this worse?


> it was a bank

Ah yes the irony of capitalism.

I feel like banks are one of the last places you should try to peddle B2B/SAAS/consulting packages unless you already have a gigantic reputation to work with and/or deep domain expertise + a professional network.

Many bank execs want to sign contracts with a minimum of 5 year duration. No one wants to spend all that due diligence time & energy on a 12 month contract. So, the stakes are really high. They're going to want you to prove you will be around in a decade.

If their executive team is worried about your business continuity, but still really like the technology idea, that is where you run into the undercutting angle. They'll move it under a different cost center like "tech research and transformation initiatives" as opposed to "principal, line of business systems". They'll still talk to you, but it will be on entirely different terms than you would desire.


> And is We even truly a tech company anyway?

Nope. Just a real estate play trying to be valued at tech level multiples. That's part of reason We's in trouble.


> its a financial service, not a software company

I have no experience in the financial industry, but I work in a field which is also highly regulated (medical devices). Failure to pass audits or be otherwise compliant to regulation can very much make the difference between having or not having any business at all.

Paying of decades worth of debt in a few month where clients see no shiny new features was likely more and better service than that founder-CEO type deserved.


> They are not in the business of selling software.

But they are probably in the business of selling themselves as a software/ tech company. People value tech companies, so you'd better be one, even if you do taxi services, produce and distribute tv series, or rent office space.


> It's a software company!

But it's not actually a software company.


> This looks alot like car companies

Every successful company eventually becomes a bank. See also Apple.


> This is not one of those tech acquisitions where the company is bought to be shut down.

Translation: This is one of those tech acquisitions where the company is bought to be shut down.

I wonder if it sounds as ridiculous to the one writing it as it does to someone reading.


> What’s pernicious about this new organization: whereas the status of a double-breasted banker suit is transparently obvious, the technical arrangement that conspires to give an amazing streaming setup is altogether inscrutable to lay people.

What is truly inscrutable is the decision to adopt this particular style of writing.


"We have always admired them from afar, especially their dedication to craft and their commitment to their B Corp certification."

We have admired their B-corp certification? Is this a joke? It reads like satire, but I can't imagine anyone actually writing this on an acquisition announcement.


>Would you really trust a SaaS that is about to lose money and go bankrupt at any time?

I meant a company that has just a bit more profit and revenue than that. Perhaps I should have written that in some other way.


"After all, without trade secrets and IP, a business has nothing to stand out from the crowd."

I'm not sure if that's meant to be sarcastic or serious.


> They’re an enterprise software company

Really? Someone ought to tell them.


> It's a software engineering company.

This sort of implied a generalization.


>Admittedly, a business where this company has slurped out most of the value and saddled you with various software license fees or whatever in perpetuity. But a business nonetheless.

didn't I see an episode of The Sopranos where this was the plot, albeit in mafia dress.


> and not a very good one.

That’s such a Silicon Valley thing to say. Only there could a profitable business with a useful product be deemed “not very good”.


> What were they thinking?

"Tech companies, specifically, have lots of money. How can we get some of it?"


> never forget that they’re just here to make money.

I find this read to be a little too pessimistic. They’re not an investment firm. They’re still making products that they want to sell people, and making them the way they think is best. Do they want profit? Of course. But their product is not money. They’re first and foremost an electronics manufacturer.


>> There's definitely an opportunity here.

A technical opportunity, not a business opportunity.

next

Legal | privacy