The Mint Sale Truth Table

Nice post by Fred Wilson re who drove the sale of Mint to Intuit for $170m - Management or Investors:

Here are some rules that I've learned over the years:

1) When the founders and management want to sell, the VCs ought to go along (within reason) because blocking a sale and having angry and unhappy founders and management running the business is a bad outcome.

2) VCs often impact the price and terms of an exit but they rarely drive the exit itself when the founder is still actively running the business.

3) When a company is doing really well, the investors rarely want to sell. VCs make all of their money on a few investments per fund. When a company is in that group, they don't like to see an early exit.

4) When a founder owns a large stake in the business and is still running it, it is very likely that the founder drove the decision to sell and the sale process and was advised by the investors and board.

5) If the founders are no longer involved in the business and the management was hired by the VCs, and the VCs control the business, then it is likely that the investors drove the sale process and the decision to sell.

6) If the company is not doing well, then the decision to sell was likely forced by the VCs.

This leant itself to a little game theory truth table, which I've drawn up above. What it also shows is a case that is missing in Fred's analysis, ie where the company is doing badly but the Founders are still in control. In this case my observation is that the founders usually try and keep going, but as they take in more cash they get diluted until they lose control, at which time a sale is forced.

That Top Right Hand box may well explain why the investors let the Facebook guys sell and lock in some of the benefits - far better that than the Founders/s (I lose track of who exactly founded Facebook) force a sale. If the investors thought Mint was such a good company one assumes they could have followed suit?