[ticmasta]

This is an interesting, feel-good read and I'm legitimately happy for the OP's success, but I do have a few nits. First this is a pretty simplistic way to value a business, using the tools we were introduced to in 2nd year management accounting. They're all useful but the reality is that different buyers have very different goals and their valuation is reflected in what they plan to do. The approach here is most aligned with purchasing as a going concern. It's the classic built a solid business that does pretty well but still requires a lot of hard work and the owners want to retire. I'm going to be focused on cashflows and growth, historic and projected. This is very different from the types of businesses we talk about on HN everyday, or a value investor looking for things like assets devalued by underperformance, etc. The point is "it's complicated".

My second nit is more philosophical, related to this statement:

>> That’s because the process of creating an attractive business for someone else to buy naturally makes it a better business to own.

I only feel this is true if your definition of a good business to own is one that you can sell at this point in time, which seems a lot like a dog chasing it's tail.

There are lots of counter examples to refute this idea, such as deferring hiring, capital replacement or any real long term investment. Amazon is such a valuable company today because of the things it did through the early 2000's that made it look so unattractive to buy.