alt Hacker NewsThis was driven home to me at SaaS company with > $80M ARR when the new CEO was parachuted in by the PE owner said in an all-hands "and we're close to cashflow positive when we account for our interest payments..." How can a software company generating this much subscription revenue NOT be making money? When it's servicing the > $500M the PE firm used to buy it. The rest of the playbook was boringly predictable: cut costs, sign multi-year enterprise deals, sell before the current fund's horizon and hope the music doesn't end.
As a result I prefer the naked greed of VCs where everybody - VC, owners, employees - knows the plan is IPO because at least it's transparent compared to the dirty lies a lot of PE pushes.
Replies
The way I see it, it's literally simply the PE paying the existing owner for the privilege of squeezing the value out of the business and its customers in the short term (or in the ideal/theoretical case, running it more sustainably and making higher profits). Management's job becomes to extract high profit in the short term, not to keep the company running profitably.
So, logically, selling to PEs/operators who are known to do this is basically the owners selling out and taking the cash. The consequences are clear to anyone who's been watching.
It's the destructiveness that gets me. It's a perfectly good company, employees are happy, consumers are happy, profit is being made, it's sustaining itself... Then they come and just literally destroy all that.
This can't be good for society. I wonder why it's just not criminalized somehow.