Self-Funded Search vs. Traditional Search Funds

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 24 янв 2025

Комментарии • 8

  • @mattbarnes9442
    @mattbarnes9442 Год назад +3

    This is the best (and most viewed) Acquiring Minds episode to date. Good points on both side. Spicy discussion. Well done, Will.

  • @bhushanekbote8508
    @bhushanekbote8508 Год назад +5

    Good to have more of such conversations. This one fell short of the promise, but keep them coming Will! What process does self funded searcher follows in getting commitments from investors before a deal is identified? If I have a $20M deal and I am a self funded searcher with no soft commitments it is hard to raise that kind of capital in short amount of time. Traditional search has a process defined but is often time limited to Stanford, Harvard grads - I hope there are more processes documented for self funded searchers raising acquisition capital.

  • @jbellissimo241
    @jbellissimo241 2 года назад +3

    Fantastic podcast - appreciated hearing the different sides.

  • @kokits
    @kokits Год назад +12

    these two prob have some history

    • @RichardRaphael-yq3ot
      @RichardRaphael-yq3ot 8 месяцев назад +1

      I didn't think so. To me, it seems they are more like opposite bookends among searchers.
      Overall, I think Greg won the debate.

  • @derekf425
    @derekf425 4 месяца назад

    Is there is a hybrid model meaning can I raise a tradiitonal search fund and get the start up capital but raise the money through other investors for the actual acquisition so therefore it is less risk to the search fund investors since they may only be putting up $300k in startup costs and so in return would receive less equity split since they are not putting up any capital into the deal but still receive a permanent equity stake both on a monthly or annual basis from the businesses net profits but also upon exit?

  • @Yanismellata
    @Yanismellata Год назад +4

    Extremely insightful podcast.
    I don't think the passive aggressive and attacks contributed to the quality of the conversation. It felt more like each party was trying to defend their point of view rather providing an objective perspective with pros and cons for each side.