Why is it _wrong_ for owners to do what’s best for them? Most people don’t own a business as a charity- they own it to make money. If a PE acquisition is the best path to a lucrative exit, why shouldn’t they do it?
Who is a founder necessarily hurting when they sell their company to a PE firm?
What I'm hearing you say is that once a founder starts a business and hires a single employee they must operate that company until death. That seems like a ridiculous position to me and perhaps you're missing some fundamental knowledge on life. If that were somehow codified to law, I would've never started a business.
Surely there's a lot of middle ground between "it's wrong to sell your company to a PE firm that will suck out all its money" and "once you hire a single employee you must operate that company until death".
I don’t believe that looking out for one’s own interests (“selfish”) is wrong. My dad taught me a valuable lesson as a child- the world owes you nothing and as long as you understand that you'll be fine. I take that to mean that nobody else will look out for you so you have to do what's best for you.
In my situation, my employees profited nicely from a PE acquisition. They all got a sizeable transaction bonus. Not only that, they received additional job security with the backing of a large company.
I'm sure most of HN is aware of where selfish behavior can go wrong. My favorite personal example would be a "tragedy of the commons."
For certain, groups where individuals all act in their own self interest sometimes come up with the best solutions for everyone. It bothers me that people believe either maxim must always be true for all circumstances. (this is effectively socialism vs. libertarianism) It seems very clear to me that each camp has supporting examples, and that there are very few universal maxims.
Getting back to the main point, I think there have been many instances were selfish private equity has made things worse for people, which does not discount instances where it has made things better.
Sure, the only things in life that are certain is death and taxes. Nothing else is really that black and white.
I still don't believe that a founder doing what's best for them and their family is "wrong". Absolutely, employees should be a concern and a founder looking to be acquired should do whatever possible to ensure a successful future for them as well. But to say that a founder must own a company forever and ever with no chance at ever exiting is not something I can agree with.
No hard feelings, but I hope we can both take away here that there are nuances to this topic (and every other topic) and to say that "selfish behavior is wrong" is too extreme a statement.
