[hnsmurf]

The exit section is a little silly. When you take $50m you don't just get to not exit later. You're just saying you're going to do it via an IPO or an IPO-sized acquisition.

If you really don't want to exit, don't take money at all. The minute you take a VC's funds you're agreeing to exit.

[tlrobinson]

From the context it seems they're specifically talking about acquisitions. IPO seems in line with their goals, including "making a hundred year company".

[petercooper]

I'm not an expert in this area so take this question as genuine and not an attempt at playing devil's advocate :-)

Couldn't a company take significant investment, remain private, and maintain its founders indefinitely? For example, the founders may not ever wish to leave but are OK to dilate the shares through investments. Investors can then make a return through either dividends over time or by selling their shares to other investors who place a higher value on the company. This assumes investors aren't just in it for a quick buck, of course, but are buying into what they think will be a profit making machine within a reasonable timescale.