The problem with that analysis is it ignores all the companies that exited through an acquisition rather than public markets.
If anything, it's an endorsement of M&A.
If anything, it's an endorsement of M&A.
Once you take outside funding, you really have no choice but an acquisition or go public. VCs don’t want to get tiny dividend checks. Even public shareholders will insist on a sale at the right price
> Even public shareholders will insist on a sale at the right price
Public shareholders generally don't insist on anything as they are dispersed. They may elect directors to the board, but that question gets into all sorts of dynamics about who actually really votes when annual meetings come around, board independence, activist shareholders and whatnot.
Put all of that aside and assume for a second that directors are a perfect representation of shareholder interests. Boards do not "insist on a sale". Instead, they may have the _fiduciary duty_ to consider bona fide acquisition offers and take the decision that maximizes shareholder value, triggered upon certain conditions (cf Revlon Duties)
I don't know the specifics of your company so I can't give you valuation advice, but I'd just like to add that, in my experience, I've seen lots of C-level teams and Directors refuse to sell even when a great offer was on the table because they believed they were worth more. In numerous cases, it turns out they were wrong and the company either fizzled out or sold to a different buyer a year or two later for much less than they could have gotten.
I'm talking refusing a $3.5 billion offer because you think you're worth $4B, only to sell for $2B later.
Not every deal is a good deal, but remember as an insider who's built the company you're also likely somewhat biased. There's nothing morally wrong about selling if it is quote-unquote "the right price".
I can't really name names in public, but email is in profile if you ever want to chat