Maybe it's just me, but in the video, the founder doesn't seem all that excited about the acquisition. It's almost like he's having second thoughts, but it's too late to back out.
Even if had he no financial stake in the company it's clear (and understandable) that he feels a sense of ownership of what it does today and wants to see it continue to succeed. To the point he's definitely likely to be somewhat blind to its failings.
It's the second time in a short while that he shows he does not want to run the company like it is a public company. But he does want access to that capital. Those two don't mesh.
I thought he was put CEO of an existing company that did something. This was just him and some buddies starting a new venture that didn't go anywhere, and they only lost money with it.
I mean, it's far less paradoxical than it sounded at first.
Well, at first he was worried that he'd be known as a sucker and wouldn't be able to raise money for another company. "I sold XYZ for $100m, now fund my new thing ABC." Sounds a lot better than the raw truth. Since then, he's started something that's doing well. Some pretty interesting investors, some market traction, but he's still no where near being worth $100m.
It's interesting and hopefully we find out. He turned a vague idea into an $80B venture that's already affecting nearly everyone one way or other, and somehow he's not capable as a leader?
He wasn't always an investor, and setting up a new fund/accelerator/etc. is closer to being an entrepreneur than the investor role of a random principal at a big VC.
I agree; and didn't say it was dubious. That said; the title was phrased with a slight negative connotation; before it was changed it was like:
Newmark was an idealist; now he's a billionaire
He is likely a paper billionaire but the article didn't really prove to me he's less of an idealist not that he would sell; making that figure hypothetical.
Sure he's rich; but he could be much more so and the reason is ethics and idealism. So too me; I think saying the company is worth x; and he owns most of it fails to consider he likely wouldn't sell and has built a profitable business users love while remaining humble and ignoring greed
Edit: I know of one large anonymous donation he has made personally and I an nowhere near connected or know anyone that knows him personally
I agree. Although there are norms for the practice of selling large personal stakes, generally someone who is/has been a founder would announce their intent to diversify with a schedule — ie I’m going to sell x% over the next 3 years regardless of the price for purposes of diversification. Most investors accept that. I think in this case, his image is so tarnished that pretty much anything he does will be greeted with scorn.
I think it is more the fact that he is a single founder (and one man band by the sounds of it) that s/he wants to hide. Business customers are not happy to buy from a business with a single person risk.
Personally in this market having a business run by a single person is probably these risky than a small team since the chance of bankruptcy is less.
If it was about money, he wouldn't be giving away most of his company while trying to retain a controlling stake. The fact that he is giving away his money suggests that he's more interested in being a successful business mogul than he is about being "FU rich."
I was going to mention this post. I still think it was genuine and that he has "no idea of what he is doing" as he is saying. Otherwise if he had a true vision of his own business he wouldn't have sold, wouldn't he ?
reply