When a big company comes after a hot startup, it’s not a slam dunk decision to sell

One hundred dollar bills raining from the sky between office buildings.

Image Credits: REB Images / Getty Images

Rumors first surfaced last month that Google was going after cloud security startup Wiz and a $23 billion offer was on the table, the most lucrative offer ever made for a startup. Before the deal eventually died, there would have been a lot of moving parts, and it’s fair to ask: What are the mechanics when a big deal like this is set in motion, and how does a startup decide to sell or not?

We spoke to Jyoti Bansal, who is founder and CEO at Harness, a developer tools startup that has raised approximately $575 million and has made a bunch of small acquisitions along the way. While Bansal doesn’t have direct knowledge of the Google-Wiz negotiation process, he experienced being courted by a large company when Cisco came after his previous startup AppDynamics. Cisco ended up buying the company just a few days before it was set to go public in 2017 for $3.7 billion.

He says there are three factors in play when it comes to deals like this. The first is how serious the offer is and whether it’s concrete or just exploratory. For a private company like Wiz, chances are it’s going to be exploratory at first because there is not a lot of public information available on its financials as there would be with a public company.

Bansal says when he went through the AppDynamics negotiations with Cisco, he had recently filed an S-1 with the SEC and all his financial cards were already on the table. “So for an acquirer, acquiring a private company that’s on the IPO path and a few days from an IPO is essentially no different than acquiring a public company,” he said. “All the information they need is out there, and they don’t have to worry about if they’re missing some information, or the information is not clean, audited or scrutinized.”

Once you determine how serious the company is, you have to explore whether this would be a good match. “The second factor in any kind of courtship that happens is what’s the reason for the combined company? Is that interesting? Is that exciting?” You also have to take into consideration what happens to your employees and your products: Will some employees lose their jobs? Will products be deprecated or canceled?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you have to scrutinize the economics of the deal to see whether they make sense and whether they are a good value for shareholders. From Wiz’s perspective, it was a huge offer (assuming the rumored amount was accurate) that was 46 times its current ARR and 23 times its projected 2025 ARR. Yet Wiz thought it would be better off remaining a private company.

In Bansal’s case, when Cisco came a courtin’, he was in the middle of his company’s IPO road show. It was days before the company was going public, but even with the information out there for Cisco to analyze, there were discussions, and it wasn’t easy for Bansal to give up his baby, even if the price eventually was right.

The two companies knew that there was a strict deadline in front of them. Once the IPO happened, that would be that. The negotiations ended up involving three offers, and when it was over, Cisco got its company. “Ultimately, it comes down to what’s best for all the shareholders in terms of risk and reward. It’s all about what’s the risk of being independent versus the reward of selling,” Bansal said.

The first offer was in line with IPO value and was an easy no. The second one was better, but after discussing it with the board, Bansal said no again. “Then they came back with a third offer, and in the third offer, it made sense from a risk versus reward for our shareholders to sell the company.” And sell they did in the range 2.5x to 3x the IPO valuation.

It’s easy to think that with billions of dollars at stake, it would be an easy decision to sell, but it really wasn’t. “It was not an easy decision from our side. It sounds like [$3.7 billion] is a very easy decision.” But he says you have to poll your investors, your fellow executives, your board members — and they all have different interests, and you are trying to come to the right decision for everyone involved.

Wiz thought it was better staying independent. For AppDynamics, with the pressure of the IPO deadline looming and a good offer on the table, the company finally went for it. “So for us to independently grow into that valuation of two and a half, three times more than our IPO valuation would have taken us at least three years of good execution . . . ,” he said. “And there were a lot of unknowns, a lot of risk for the company like what happens in the next three years.”

But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some regrets in spite of making more than 300 of his employees millionaires with the transaction and personal wealth for himself. When he looks back at the timing of the announcement, he realizes that it’s entirely possible he could have made that much money and more.

“I always wonder what AppDynamics could have become if we had gone through with the IPO. There are a lot of unknowns, and hindsight is 20/20, but if you look back, we sold the company in 2017, the few years after that sale, after 2017, were some of the best boom years in the tech industry, especially for B2B SaaS,” he said. In the end, he might have made more, but instead he started Harness, and he’s happy building a second company.

It’s important to note that Wiz’s offer remains mired in rumor, so it may or may not be that much money. But if it was, the founders could also have regrets if Wiz doesn’t grow into the value it could have had if it had taken the big money money and run.

One hundred dollar bills raining from the sky between office buildings.

When a big company comes after a hot startup, it’s not a slam dunk decision to sell

One hundred dollar bills raining from the sky between office buildings.

Image Credits: REB Images / Getty Images

Rumors first surfaced last month that Google was going after cloud security startup Wiz and a $23 billion offer was on the table, the most lucrative offer ever made for a startup. Before the deal eventually died, there would have been a lot of moving parts, and it’s fair to ask: What are the mechanics when a big deal like this is set in motion, and how does a startup decide to sell or not?

We spoke to Jyoti Bansal, who is founder and CEO at Harness, a developer tools startup that has raised approximately $575 million and has made a bunch of small acquisitions along the way. While Bansal doesn’t have direct knowledge of the Google-Wiz negotiation process, he experienced being courted by a large company when Cisco came after his previous startup AppDynamics. Cisco ended up buying the company just a few days before it was set to go public in 2017 for $3.7 billion.

He says there are three factors in play when it comes to deals like this. The first is how serious the offer is and whether it’s concrete or just exploratory. For a private company like Wiz, chances are it’s going to be exploratory at first because there is not a lot of public information available on its financials as there would be with a public company.

Bansal says when he went through the AppDynamics negotiations with Cisco, he had recently filed an S-1 with the SEC and all his financial cards were already on the table. “So for an acquirer, acquiring a private company that’s on the IPO path and a few days from an IPO is essentially no different than acquiring a public company,” he said. “All the information they need is out there, and they don’t have to worry about if they’re missing some information, or the information is not clean, audited or scrutinized.”

Once you determine how serious the company is, you have to explore whether this would be a good match. “The second factor in any kind of courtship that happens is what’s the reason for the combined company? Is that interesting? Is that exciting?” You also have to take into consideration what happens to your employees and your products: Will some employees lose their jobs? Will products be deprecated or canceled?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, you have to scrutinize the economics of the deal to see whether they make sense and whether they are a good value for shareholders. From Wiz’s perspective, it was a huge offer (assuming the rumored amount was accurate) that was 46 times its current ARR and 23 times its projected 2025 ARR. Yet Wiz thought it would be better off remaining a private company.

In Bansal’s case, when Cisco came a courtin’, he was in the middle of his company’s IPO road show. It was days before the company was going public, but even with the information out there for Cisco to analyze, there were discussions, and it wasn’t easy for Bansal to give up his baby, even if the price eventually was right.

The two companies knew that there was a strict deadline in front of them. Once the IPO happened, that would be that. The negotiations ended up involving three offers, and when it was over, Cisco got its company. “Ultimately, it comes down to what’s best for all the shareholders in terms of risk and reward. It’s all about what’s the risk of being independent versus the reward of selling,” Bansal said.

The first offer was in line with IPO value and was an easy no. The second one was better, but after discussing it with the board, Bansal said no again. “Then they came back with a third offer, and in the third offer, it made sense from a risk versus reward for our shareholders to sell the company.” And sell they did in the range 2.5 to 3 times the IPO valuation.

It’s easy to think that with billions of dollars at stake, it would be an easy decision to sell, but it really wasn’t. “It was not an easy decision from our side. It sounds like [$3.7 billion] is a very easy decision.” But he says you have to poll your investors, your fellow executives, your board members — and they all have different interests, and you are trying to come to the right decision for everyone involved.

Wiz thought it was better staying independent. For AppDynamics, with the pressure of the IPO deadline looming and a good offer on the table, the company finally went for it. “So for us to independently grow into that valuation of two and a half, three times more than our IPO valuation would have taken us at least three years of good execution to grow into it,” he said. “And there were a lot of unknowns, a lot of risk for the company like what happens in the next three years.”

But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some regrets in spite of making more than 300 of his employees millionaires with the transaction and personal wealth for himself. When he looks back at the timing of the announcement, he realizes that it’s entirely possible he could have made that much money and more.

“I always wonder what AppDynamics could have become if we had gone through with the IPO. There are a lot of unknowns, and hindsight is 20/20, but if you look back, we sold the company in 2017, the few years after that sale, after 2017, were some of the best boom years in the tech industry, especially for B2B SaaS,” he said. In the end, he might have made more, but instead he started Harness, and he’s happy building a second company.

It’s important to note that Wiz’s offer remains mired in rumor, so it may or may not be that much money. But if it was, the founders could also have regrets if Wiz doesn’t grow into the value it could have had if it had taken the big money money and run.

VCs are selling shares of hot AI companies like Anthropic and xAI to small investors in a wild SPV market

Illustration of AI and xAI

Image Credits: Bryce Durbin / TechCrunch

VCs are clamoring to invest in hot AI companies, willing to pay exorbitant share prices for coveted spots on their cap tables. Even so, most aren’t able to get into such deals at all. Yet, small, unknown investors, including family offices and high-net-worth individuals, have found their own way to get shares of the hottest private startups like Anthropic, Groq, OpenAI, Perplexity, and Elon Musk’s X.ai (the makers of Grok).

They are using special purpose vehicles, or SPVs, where multiple parties pool their money to share an allocation of a single company. SPVs are generally formed by investors who have direct access to the shares of these startups and then turn around and sell a part of their allocation to external backers, often charging significant fees while retaining some profit share (known as carry).

While SPVs aren’t new – smaller investors have relied on them for years – there’s a growing trend of SPVs successfully getting shares from the biggest names in AI.

These investors are finding that the most popular AI companies, except OpenAI, are not all that hard for them to buy at their smaller levels of investing. That’s because early backers in sought-after AI startups are eager to exercise their pro-rata rights, which allow them to buy more shares each time a company raises, maintaining their percentage ownership. That’s the perfect scenario for an SPV. Rather than giving up the shares because the early investor can’t afford them, they’ll create the SPV, fund it by raising money from others, and, in most cases, charge additional fees.

In many cases, the VCs will offer access to the SPV to their existing limited partner investors, but they also may use brokers to offer access to a much larger universe of potential investors. In fact, the same AI startup may have multiple SPVs on their cap table, representing lots of small investors. But the terms each small investor will pay depend on the SPV. It’s a bit of a wild west, buyer-beware situation.

Ken Sawyer, co-founder of Saints Capital, a secondaries market VC firm, said he regularly sees SPVs for the same company marketed with different terms. “Fees and carry are all over the map,” he said, adding that SPV sponsors can charge as high as 2% of the total money invested and keep 20% of the profits.

What’s more, some SPVs are formed on top of another SPV. For instance, when Menlo Ventures was raising a $750 million SPV to invest in Anthropic earlier this year, some funds who invested in it, resold a slice of their SPV allocation to other investors, charging additional fees on their second-layer SPV, Sawyer said.

Investors who want Anthropic, in particular, have a lot of options. Shares in the OpenAI competitor were auctioned off as part of FTX’s bankruptcy. The crypto exchange’s fund invested in Anthropic before FTX blew up in late 2022.

“FTX’s sale flooded the market with a huge amount of shares,” said Glen Anderson, CEO at Rainmaker Securities, a secondaries market for late-stage companies. “A lot of brokers like ourselves created SPVs to buy Anthropic shares.”  The FTX estate sold nearly $900 million worth of Anthropic shares, according to court documents reviewed by CNBC.

Sometimes SPVs are created in association with primary rounds of companies still in fundraising mode. That means that the small investors can get in on a startup, or a coveted private company, at the same time the major investors do. 

For example, shares in Elon Musk’s xAI were plentiful, according to Glen Anderson, co-founder and managing director at Rainmaker Securities. xAI raised a part of its capital in its latest $6 billion round through SPVs that in some situations had a 5% upfront fees, in addition to management fees and carried interest (profit split charge), Business Insider reported.

xAI’s round was open for weeks, allowing various investors to form SPVs and sell them to smaller players. The company was initially raising $3 billion on a pre-money valuation of $15 billion, as TechCrunch previously reported. But once xAI realized that there’s so much demand, it increased to $6 billion on a pre-money valuation of $18 billion.

Sawyer said that he now regularly sees primary round SPVs stay open for some time, which allows companies to gauge demand for their shares from a large pool of backers.

While SPVs may be a suitable mechanism for buying shares of hot companies not available to investors by any other means, some investors warn that it comes with high risk. Unlike venture funds, backers of SPVs don’t receive direct information on the companies.

“It boggles my mind that just a few years after the excesses of the 2020 and 2021 period, when people were essentially investing blindly into SPVs, with fees on fees on fees, into vehicles that were totally opaque,” said Jack Selby, managing director at Thiel Capital and founder at AZ-VC Fund, a firm focused on backing startups based in Arizona. “People are doing that all over again with everything that is a shiny toy: AI.”

Maven Ventures, Jim Scheinman, Sara Deshpande, Robert Ravanshenas, consumer tech, venture capital

Consumer tech investing is still hot for Maven Ventures, securing $60M for Fund IV

Maven Ventures, Jim Scheinman, Sara Deshpande, Robert Ravanshenas, consumer tech, venture capital

Image Credits: Maven Ventures / Maven Ventures partners, from left, Jim Scheinman, Sara Deshpande and Robert Ravanshenas

When prolific venture capital firms Andreessen Horowitz and Lerer Hippeau announced in early 2024 they were pivoting away from consumer tech, it sparked a social media debate about whether there are still opportunities.

Maven Ventures’ Jim Scheinman and Sara Deshpande say “yes.” And to prove it, they raised $60 million in capital commitments for a fourth fund to back “massive consumer tech trends.”

They say “massive” because this is the firm that seeded companies like videoconferencing giant Zoom and autonomous vehicle maker Cruise. Scheinman, founding managing partner, is even credited for coming up with the Zoom name.

As to the notion that no one wants to invest in consumer tech anymore, Scheinman told TechCrunch “it’s not true.” Like other sectors, this one also has cycles where consumers either think something is “the coolest thing ever” or “the worst.”

Consumer tech is in the trough of the cycle, Scheinman said. As such, he believes this is the best time to be an investor. “It’s less noisy, and there is a lot less competition as less people try to invest,” he said.

When he started investing, the internet was the first major platform. Then came mobile, then cloud and AWS. Scheinman thought web3 was going to be the next thing, but that was eclipsed by artificial intelligence. Jumping in, Maven will be there helping to build the next game-changing health AI company or robotics AI consumer business, he said.

“This is absolutely the time when multibillion-dollar companies are born, from now to over the next three to four years,” Scheinman said. “There are dozens of companies that you’ve never heard of that will be household names with the likes of Zoom, Cruise and Facebook. This is the time to invest in it.”

Any new portfolio business will be in good company. Overall, 16% of Maven’s portfolio companies have reached a minimum $500 million exit or valuation, which is 10x industry average, Scheinman and Deshpande, general partner, told TechCrunch.

Scheinman started the firm in 2013 and brought in Deshpande soon after to focus on consumer AI and personalized medicine. They brought in investment partner Robert Ravanshenas in 2015, and again in 2020 after a stint in a startup operating role, to focus on fintech, longevity and consumer AI.

Together the trio remains committed to seeding similar consumer tech trends, including applications of AI, personalized healthcare, climate and sustainability, family technology and fintech.

Fund IV brings total assets under management to $200 million and more than 50 total investments. The firm makes six to eight investments each year, writing average check sizes between $1 million and $1.5 million.

Maven invested in seven new companies so far from the new fund, including Medeloop, a platform to help improve clinical research; Lutra AI, a startup that creates AI workflows from natural language; and AI agent company MultiOn.

A big theme for this new fund is investing in founders that have unique insight around how this technology can improve life for consumers. In addition, “figuring how, with this new emergence and improvement in AI technology, do we envision that we can actually improve life for consumers all the way to the consumer,” Deshpande said.

“Consumer trends will never go away,” Deshpande said. “Consumers are the spending engine of a healthy economy. We are all consumers. For us, it’s really this knack of being able to see what is changing consumer behavior or a new technology that can massively impact people’s lives. Founders come to us with an amazing vision worth fighting for, and that’s the type of stuff we’re spending a lot of time on right now.”

Consumer tech is bound for a comeback among unicorns, but maybe not just yet