We’ll explore his stoic philosophy, the importance of transparency and trust in acquisition processes, and the delicate balance of control and delegation in managing a company. Joseph also highlights the significance of meaningful legacy over financial gain, his approach to maintaining relationships post-acquisition, and how he prepares his organizations for seamless leadership transitions. Tune in for invaluable insights on dealing with acquisition challenges, the pitfalls of relying too heavily on bankers, and the importance of direct, personal engagement throughout the exit journey.
This is what we discuss during this episode:
- Emotional Preparation: Joseph emphasizes the importance of having a “sounding board” such as a mentor to provide emotional support and advice during the challenging exit process. This is often more valuable than early legal or commercial advice.
- Ethical Conduct in Business: Being the person you want others to be and consistently choosing ethics over short-term gains can significantly impact your reputation and long-term success. A good reputation is an invaluable asset.
- Control and Transparency: Ensuring transparency with buyers to prevent surprises, while carefully managing the information shared within your organization to avoid unnecessary rumors and anxiety, is crucial for a smooth acquisition process.
As always – hosted by Peak’s very own co-founder and managing partner Johan van Mil and this time the co-host was Philippe Klitzing 🕺🏻🕺🏼
You can find the episode on your favourite podcast platform, linked below. And, if you are truly interested in listening to the big exit of specific founders – reach out to us so we can invite them for the next episode!
Spotify Podcasts
Apple Podcasts
You can find the transcribed version of the episode below:
Madelon:
Starting a company is easy; growing a company is harder. But selling your company? That’s a whole different story. In the Big Exit show, we lift the curtain of secrecy around selling businesses by learning from ambitious and successful founders who have been on this rollercoaster. Our hosts, venture capital investors Johann van Mil, founding and managing partner of Peak, and Anke Hauskes, founding and managing partner of Nphard, will guide you on this exciting journey.
Johan:
Welcome, everybody. Thank you for joining the Big Exit podcast. Today, I’ve asked my colleague Philip to join me. Normally, we don’t do this together, and we certainly don’t do it live. So this is a first, Philip! Given the preparation you did with Tim, I’m confident this will be a great episode.
Our guest today is Josef Brunner. Josef founded his first company at 16, sold it, and went on to start four other companies. In total, he successfully exited for over $400 million. A truly impressive founder—welcome to the show, Josef.
Josef Brunner:
Thanks for having me.
Johan:
Great! You founded your first company at 16, right? I started one myself at 12, so I understand a bit about what it takes. What motivated you to start it? And what does that say about your skills and upbringing at the time?
Josef Brunner:
Well, I didn’t have any skills. It was mainly the circumstances. My parents had a bakery, but it went bankrupt. We lost our home because we lived in the bakery. At 15, I became homeless, and that changed my life dramatically. I dropped out of school—I had wanted to study physics and loved numbers—but I needed to help my parents. So I started a company, sold it when I was 18, and was able to buy them a new house, which they still live in today.
That remains the most emotional and rewarding benefit I’ve ever received from being an entrepreneur.
Johan:
Would you say that becoming homeless forced you into entrepreneurship, or did you already have an entrepreneurial spirit before that?
Josef Brunner:
No, I wasn’t an entrepreneur at all. I’m actually very shy. I don’t like socializing, and at parties, you’d typically find me alone in a corner.
Johan:
Yet here you are, sitting on stage!
Josef Brunner:
Yeah, because you put me here! It was really the circumstances that shaped me. I’ve reflected a lot on what they did to me. One realization was that pain has been my biggest companion on this journey. I even use pain as a motivator in sports. The core of my pain was when my parents lost their house.
Johan:
Right. And if you apply that pain to founding and growing companies, how does it influence company culture and team building?
Josef Brunner:
I try to keep my pain to myself—it wouldn’t be good motivation for employees. Pain-driven motivation won’t help you; discipline will. That’s the real key. You mentioned the difference between starting and selling a company, but in between, we also took one of my companies public. You don’t reach those milestones with motivation alone—discipline is what gets you there.
Pain serves as a constant reminder to stay disciplined. About five years ago, I was on a hike from Bavaria to Austria, reflecting as I often do on hikes. I realized that instead of being haunted by pain, I should let it pull me forward. Now, I think of pain as horses pulling me toward my goals rather than a force chasing me from behind.
Johan:
That’s a powerful shift in perspective. One last question before Philip jumps in—you mentioned discipline. What does discipline mean to you?
Josef Brunner:
I’m a stoic. Stoicism is simple: focus on what you can control and ignore what you can’t. To maximize control, I use two tools: rules and behavior.
For example, one rule is that I hike every Sunday—no excuses. If I eat out, I ask myself, What would a healthy person eat? In business, I ask, How would a good entrepreneur or leader handle this situation? These rules and behaviors create a framework that enforces discipline. I go to bed and wake up at the same time, I set time aside for thinking, and I have non-negotiable blocks for hiking and exercise.
Johan:
Wow.
Josef Brunner:
These are non-negotiable. A rule isn’t open for debate. If it were, it would be a suggestion.
Johan:
Exactly.
Philip:
That’s great context. Now, let’s talk about the businesses themselves. You mentioned pain as a recurring theme, but what were the key inflection points in your companies? How did these critical moments evolve from your first venture to your latest, New Churchill United?
Early Days
Josef Brunner:
In the early days, everything was pure luck. I basically just stumbled through life. I think about luck in two ways: direct luck and indirect luck. Indirect luck is the fact that I was born in Germany, which helped me tremendously. I met people who played a significant role in my journey—some of them even acquired my companies. For instance, one of my businesses was acquired by a friend of mine.
Now, Tom Noonan, my co-founder at Nutri, became a billionaire at 30. He’s now 65. Meeting him and having him acquire my second company was a major turning point for me. Meeting the CEO of Cisco—back when Cisco was the most valuable company in the world—had a big impact on my life. Meeting Henry Kravis, the founder of KKR, helped me understand how to build a family office.
These were personal inflection points. But I never really thought about my companies having inflection points because that would imply the possibility of failure. If you believe in inflection points, you’re accepting that success isn’t guaranteed. And every ounce of energy spent considering failure is wasted energy. That’s why, for me, companies don’t have inflection points.
What did change over time was my confidence and my ability to plan. But I also lost my “entrepreneurial virginity,” so to speak. There’s something beautiful about not knowing how things work, being curious, and having the eagerness to learn. I have to stay disciplined to ensure I remain curious and open-minded, so I don’t become locked into my own thinking.
Johan:
What motivates you to keep starting new companies? You’re now on your sixth, and from a financial standpoint, you don’t have to do it anymore. What drives you to keep going instead of, say, spending all your time hiking in the mountains?
Josef Brunner:
There are a few reasons. First, I love the journey. There’s nothing more exciting than taking an idea and making it successful. I enjoy when people push back against my ideas. Right now, I’m in the food industry, but my family office has also started several non-tech businesses.
For example, when COVID-19 hit, we started buying hotels. All the finance experts said, You can’t finance hotels anymore, tourism is dead. But if you apply common sense, there were only two possible outcomes: either the world was ending, in which case owning a few hotels wouldn’t matter, or life would return to normal, and people would ski and hike again.
We bought hotels from big chains, and now we’re selling them back to those same companies. It’s brilliant. You can’t make this stuff up! I’m so grateful to consultants advising big corporations because success often comes from doing what others aren’t willing to do. That’s what makes the journey so rewarding.
So that’s one reason—I genuinely enjoy it. The second reason is that it allows me to learn, meet new people, and create structure in my life. My rules, behaviors, and routines are crucial to me. I took a break from working for a few years, and it wasn’t good for me. I lost my discipline, my drive to get up and work hard.
Johan:
And you couldn’t find that same drive in something else? I know some people who exit their companies and then sail around the world or focus on philanthropy.
Josef Brunner:
Of course, I could keep myself busy. But there’s incredible beauty in the brutality of building a company. Just jumping into charity work or other activities doesn’t provide the same intensity. I thrive on pain. And there’s nothing more painful—or fulfilling—than building a company.
Johan:
That’s a strong message for founders today—you really love pain!
Josef Brunner:
Exactly.
Johan:
And if you don’t love it, don’t do it.
Josef Brunner:
Right.
Johan:
Yes.
The Importance Of Timing When Exiting
Josef Brunner:
One of the biggest questions in our industry is: Am I selling too early or too late? The answer is always yes. You never truly know. Early in my career, I focused heavily on market windows—when they open and when they close. If you have a thriving business with real substance, you can usually find a good buyer within that window.
What I focus on most in life, however, are long-term relationships. Over the years, I’ve learned that when people frequently change their lawyers, VCs, or key business partners, it’s often a red flag. Stability in a network is a good sign. Whenever I sold a company, I made sure the acquiring company felt comfortable and happy with the deal.
For example, when I left Cisco, I spoke with John Chambers, the CEO at the time. I told him how much I had learned from him and that I wanted to build something new. He was incredibly supportive—he accelerated my vesting and even said he’d be delighted to invest in my next venture. That’s the kind of relationship I strive for. It’s not just about money; it’s about reputation and integrity.
Early on, I focused too much on market timing. But over time, I started thinking more about market transformations—how industries evolve. That’s why, with Learnd, we decided to go public. The company was growing profitably, and after selling four businesses, I understood the emotional difficulty of detaching from a company. So I chose to keep it. That’s another lens I use when assessing whether to sell: Does it make sense for the investors, employees, and customers? Ideally, I want to be able to call my customers again in the future.
Reputation matters. Sometimes that means leaving money on the table, but in the long run, it’s worth it.
Johan:
When did you realize this was the best approach for selling your companies? Many founders and investors focus purely on financials or timing, but you seem to prioritize legacy and relationships.
Josef Brunner:
At one point, I was funded by Kleiner Perkins and had the opportunity to work with John Doerr, one of the superstars of Silicon Valley. He was on the board of a company that wanted to acquire one of my businesses. The terms were good, but something didn’t feel right. When I told John, his response stuck with me: That’s perfectly fine. I will always support whatever decision you make.
That’s how Silicon Valley thinks. They want to maintain relationships. People like Doerr, Warren Buffett, John Chambers, and my co-founder Tom Noonan always want you to operate in a way that feels right to you. They lead by example, and that gives you confidence when making tough decisions.
Every exit in my journey extended my network. And not just any network—a network of people who are reliable and trustworthy. That’s what I value most.
At Relayer, for example, we institutionalized entrepreneurship. I wanted the great people working for us to eventually go on their own journeys. Now, I have a network of former employees who call me when they’re starting something new, and I get to invest in them. Starting next year, I’ll be bringing them together at a mountain retreat—because now we’re seeing the second generation of entrepreneurs coming out of our companies. The CEO of Learnd, for instance, was my head of sales in Europe at Relayer. Before that, he was a sales guy at Juulx. Now, his company is thriving, and he has employees leaving to start their own ventures.
And guess what? He called me: Do you want to invest with me? That’s the most fulfilling part of it all.
Johan:
That’s incredible. It’s like the Brunner Mafia—just like the PayPal Mafia!
Josef Brunner:
It’s a cult.
Philip:
A cult, exactly! Speaking of exits, you mentioned the other day that you prefer to run the exit process yourself rather than working with advisors. Can you walk us through your reasoning?
Johan:
Yes, that’s interesting. As investors, we typically like to run exit processes with corporate finance advisors. There are some VCs in the room who might have a different perspective.
Josef Brunner:
Do we have any bankers in the room?
Philip:
Probably some ex-bankers!
Don’t Work With Bankers
Josef Brunner:
I always strongly advise every company I invest in or work with not to engage bankers—neither for fundraising nor during the exit process. The reason is simple: business is done between people. When you insert a middleman, things inevitably get lost in translation.
Imagine you’re the CEO or an executive of a company considering an acquisition. That person might be putting their career on the line for the deal. If the acquisition fails, it could leave a scar on their record.
To help these decision-makers overcome their fears, you need to be close to them—understand their goals and frame your pitch accordingly. You should be able to say, Dear [Company Name], I fully understand where you’re headed, and I believe we can play a role in that journey. But have you considered A, B, and C?
Johan:
Right.
Josef Brunner:
By doing this, you’re immediately building a team-like dynamic. Of course, there’s a risk: if you mismanage the process or damage the relationship, the deal won’t happen. But is that really a disadvantage? If you focus on being a good businessperson and a responsible participant in the ecosystem, that bond can actually increase confidence in the deal. It might even allow you to negotiate a better structure that aligns with the strategic goals of both sides.
This is why, as a CEO, running the process yourself is critical—not only to securing a strong deal but also to ensuring a smooth transition afterward. Unlike VCs, who typically exit after the transaction, founders and CEOs often stay and integrate into the acquiring company. If that transition is mismanaged, the following years can be brutal. That’s why I don’t see the point in hiring a banker.
Bankers argue that you need a competitive process. While I agree that competition is important, you don’t need a bank to create it. You can generate competition yourself. If a bank brings in 10 or 20 potential buyers, their pitch will always center around your company. But the real key to a successful acquisition is understanding and addressing the buyer’s problems—why you are the right fit for them.
Another important point: when a bank takes a company public, their real priority isn’t you—it’s the investors they bring into the deal. Even though you are paying them, their focus is on ensuring that investors get a good deal, because those investors are their true long-term clients. The same applies to M&A. A bank’s priority is the buyers, not you. Think about it: how many companies can you build in a lifetime versus how many acquisitions a company like Google or Cisco will make? That’s the dynamic you need to understand.
Johan:
That makes sense. But how do you manage your time in this process? As a founder and investor, I’ve seen how demanding an exit process can be, especially the first time. You’re reaching out to buyers, making long lists, preparing documentation, setting up meetings, assessing fit—all while running your company, keeping your team informed, and aligning with your board. What’s your approach to handling all of that?
Josef Brunner:
Before I answer that, I want to add one last point on why not to work with bankers. I’m a stoic, and stoics focus on controlling what they can control while ignoring what they can’t. If I can control the exit process, I will—because that significantly increases the likelihood of success.
Now, regarding time management: as a founder and CEO, your primary responsibilities boil down to two things:
- Clearly defining, designing, and communicating your company’s vision.
- Building an organization that can execute that vision as efficiently, effectively, and sustainably as possible.
If you do these two things well, your company should be able to operate without you. A well-structured organization doesn’t collapse when a key person leaves—not even the CEO. Most founders don’t think about organizational health in this way. They associate it with vague discussions about workplace well-being, but real organizational health is about resilience.
When a company is structurally sound, individual well-being follows naturally. If you constantly need to manufacture a sense of purpose or fight to keep employees motivated, the underlying issue isn’t mental health—it’s that your organization is broken. If your company runs smoothly without you, that gives you time to focus on strategic projects, such as an exit process.
Johan:
So, the prerequisite for managing an exit well is ensuring that your company can already function without you. That allows you to take full control of the process.
Josef Brunner:
Exactly. And this applies beyond selling the company—it’s about long-term resilience. Any organization should be able to lose anyone, at any level, and still function. That includes the CEO.
Philip:
What was the most challenging exit you’ve managed? Whether it was selecting the right buyer, negotiating terms, or handling cultural fit—what stands out?
Josef Brunner:
That’s a tough question because answering it honestly would require me to share some negative experiences. And one of my rules is: I either speak positively about people and organizations, or I don’t speak about them at all.
What I can share is the opposite—some highlights of what worked well. One standout example was Cisco’s acquisition of my company, JouleX.
At the time, we were only three years old, but we already had offices in China, Japan, the U.S., and Europe. Cisco had an incredibly structured M&A process. The pre-acquisition scouting phase, due diligence, and executive interactions were all excellent. We were acquisition number 196 for Cisco—they knew exactly what they were doing.
One thing that really impressed me was their post-merger integration process. They wanted to ensure a seamless transition across all our global offices. So, when the acquisition was announced, Cisco had teams on the ground in every location—China, Japan, the U.S., and Europe. Their people showed up wearing Cisco t-shirts that said, Your JouleX time is over. You’re now a Cisco employee. Everything was handled brilliantly.
Another thing I admired was John Chambers’ approach. He created a forum where all the founders of recently acquired companies would meet throughout their vesting period (typically two years). In those meetings, we were encouraged to give candid feedback about Cisco—what was working, what wasn’t, and how things could improve. That level of self-reflection was unique. Chambers wasn’t just a manager; he was an entrepreneur at heart.
I also had the opportunity to work with Google’s M&A team. Even though the deal didn’t ultimately go through, their approach was incredibly positive. Sometimes, how you part ways with a potential acquirer tells you more about their character than a successful deal does. And that’s why I have great admiration for how Google handles M&A—it’s a mindset that’s quite different from the traditional, rigid German corporate approach.
Johan:
Can you elaborate on that? What specifically impressed you about Google’s M&A process, even though the deal didn’t close?
Building Networks and Long Term Relationships
Josef Brunner:
The head of M&A still reaches out about once a quarter—just checking in, asking what I’m seeing, and offering assistance. When they have questions about potential acquisitions, they reach out. Unlike anywhere else in the world, Silicon Valley is built on networks. The entire ecosystem in the U.S. operates this way.
Just last night, I had a discussion with a senior partner at Kleiner Perkins about investments. The way they build multigenerational networks is one of the key factors behind their success. You have firms like Kleiner Perkins, early investors in Amazon and Google, and then those companies—along with their executives—investing in the next generation of funds. It creates an incredibly strong and self-sustaining network.
This is why, when you work with a top-tier VC firm, you can get meetings with CEOs of almost any major company very quickly. They all prioritize long-term relationships and network-building. I think there’s a lot we can learn from that.
Johan:
Yeah, that’s really interesting, and I completely recognize that. It’s about building long-term relationships and leaving a legacy, rather than just aiming for short-term, one-off success. I think we often view things differently.
Bringing it back to the exit process—since you mentioned that a CEO or founder should step back from daily operations to focus on the exit—many founders struggle with this. How transparent do you think a CEO should be about the process within the company? What’s your experience, especially when you’re running the process yourself?
Josef Brunner:
I’m a big believer in transparency. Take Nutri United, for example—we’re building the company in public. We have our own podcast where we talk about successes, but more importantly, failures. I openly discuss where I was wrong and what I’ve learned. There’s a certain beauty in transparency.
However, there are limits. I never talk publicly about acquisition processes, for a few key reasons. First, it makes the entire company nervous. Everyone starts running around in a panic, and that kind of distraction can be damaging. If you’re in Germany, for example, you’ll quickly see one of our “superpowers” at play—we love gossip.
If a rumor about an acquisition starts, by the time it spreads through the company, you wouldn’t even recognize the original story. That’s why I firmly believe in keeping exit discussions confidential—to avoid unnecessary distractions and misinformation.
Secondly, I’ve received many strategic inbound acquisition requests. I’ll evaluate these opportunities, discuss them with my board and investors, and decide whether to pursue them. If I were always transparent about this, employees might start questioning the company’s stability. Instead of thinking, Wow, we’re in a strong position because we keep getting acquisition offers, they might assume, How bad are things if three deals have already fallen through?
Lastly, in today’s hyper-connected world, transparency can lead to unintended consequences. Let’s say you’re negotiating with a company like Cisco. If the deal doesn’t go through, it would be hugely disrespectful to Cisco if they had to explain why—especially when outsiders wouldn’t know the real reasons. So for these reasons, I strongly believe exit discussions should remain private.
Johan:
So, you advocate for transparency—except when it generates unnecessary noise, distractions, and uncertainty within the company or the market. When do you typically involve the management team in the process? What’s your experience with that?
The Organization Must Work Without You
Josef Brunner:
I involve the management team very early in the process. As a stoic leader, and someone who doesn’t work with bankers, I believe this approach is essential. One key reason is that when a company acquires a business led by a serial entrepreneur, they know there’s a high chance that the founder will eventually move on. To make the deal more attractive, I need to show that the company is not just about me—the second, third, and fourth layers of leadership are the ones actually running the business. Bringing in the management team early reassures potential buyers that the organization functions well beyond its founder.
Secondly, maybe this is just me being lazy, but I live by a principle of extreme ownership. For an organization to truly embrace extreme ownership, people must not only be responsible for their areas but also accountable for the results. That’s a big difference. Since they are the ones running the business, they are the best-qualified people to answer in-depth questions about technology, finance, and other key areas. Their involvement isn’t just helpful—it’s a real asset.
Beyond that, bringing them in is also a powerful signal of trust. Trust is the most crucial attribute of a healthy organization, and by including my management team early in the process, I reinforce that trust.
But I don’t stop there. In an exit process, buyers always want to know who the key employees are. In some deals, like with Cisco, those employees might receive special treatment—such as additional restricted stock units—to ensure they stay on board post-acquisition. By involving them early, I also bring in experts who might not hold leadership positions but are vital to our technology or operations. Giving them this exposure not only demonstrates their importance to the company but also strengthens my relationship with them.
Even if a deal ultimately doesn’t go through, this approach fosters loyalty and engagement. I don’t bring them in on day one, but once the process is underway, I make sure they are involved.
Comparing Multiple Exit Offers
Johan:
So, you bring them in. And when it comes to this topic—especially the exit process—you also want to create a competitive environment, right? But beyond that, you also consider your legacy and how you feel about a potential buyer and acquisition.
When you have multiple offers on the table, as you’ve experienced a few times, how do you compare them? And how do you work with your board in that process? From what I understand, your decision-making is strongly influenced by gut feeling and legacy—thinking about how your company will integrate into the acquiring company. But when faced with multiple offers, how do you decide which one to pursue?
Josef Brunner:
One advantage of not working with bankers is that you can guide the buyer in understanding what truly matters to you. It’s not always just about price. The structure of the deal also plays a significant role—things like clawbacks, escrow, re-vesting, indemnifications, you name it. When you’re actively involved, you can communicate your priorities clearly: what’s essential, what’s negotiable, and what are absolute deal-breakers. This helps ensure that the offers don’t vary too drastically because every potential buyer understands the framework you’re comfortable with.
Transparency in the boardroom and management team is crucial. Everyone involved should be aligned, so there are no surprises. Because of this, I’ve never really found this to be a major challenge. We aim to stay in the driver’s seat during these negotiations, and while this approach has caused some deals to fall through early on—because certain buyers weren’t comfortable with our terms—that’s actually a good thing. Why waste time pushing forward with something that ultimately won’t work?
Philip:
Handling the process yourself rather than working with bankers—since you’re not a fan of them—did that impact how buyers structured their side of the process? A banker-led M&A process is typically very structured and hands-off for the seller, but when you handle it yourself, did it change how buyers conducted due diligence or approached the acquisition?
Josef Brunner:
It really depends on the company. Cisco, for example, had an extremely structured process but was also highly engaged. They have a great culture where any VP or above can initiate an M&A process. There are different approval stages, but the person starting it is personally accountable for its success. This enforces ownership—whoever initiates the process needs to fully understand its implications because their career is on the line.
Even within a structured framework, Cisco’s leadership accepted that not every deal would work out. Their CEO openly acknowledged that some acquisitions would fail, and that mindset was ingrained in their culture. That’s very different from how many German companies operate, where failure is often seen as unacceptable.
This mentality extends beyond M&A. For example, when discussing compensation at Kleiner Perkins, their chief of staff mentioned that they track the failure rate of their partners. If a partner has zero write-offs, it signals that they aren’t taking enough risks. Venture capital is an outlier-driven business, meaning you have to place bold bets, even at the risk of failure, to achieve significant returns.
So, back to Cisco—they combined a structured acquisition process with executive-level ownership. In one case, the allocated M&A budget wasn’t sufficient for the deal, but instead of walking away, we sat down with their executives and they identified alternative financial resources outside the M&A budget to make it work. That’s a great example of how M&A should be handled: a structured process for integration, but also individuals who take real ownership.
Philip:
Would you choose an acquirer even if they couldn’t guarantee that your company—and your legacy—would continue as is? Because in Cisco’s case, that uncertainty existed. Would that be a deal-breaker for you?
Josef Brunner:
No, because as a stoic, I believe it’s my responsibility to ensure the company’s survival. If I execute well and bring our business plan to life post-acquisition, the company will succeed. That’s within my control.
However, if a banker were handling the sale and simply presented a well-polished business case to the buyer—one that looks great on paper but doesn’t reflect reality—then the situation becomes much riskier.
Of course, you can never guarantee that everything will go as planned. But what I can guarantee is that I will work as hard as possible to make the transition successful for my team. That commitment builds strong relationships, even if things don’t unfold exactly as expected.
Johan:
Exactly, because that’s what you can truly control—your own effort and influence.
Now, looking beyond the agreement phase—once you’ve signed a term sheet or LOI with a potential buyer—the due diligence (DD) phase begins. Based on my experience as both a founder and an investor, and from listening to other founders, this phase is often the most challenging. It’s when unexpected issues arise, and deals either collapse or get renegotiated.
From your perspective as a founder, what should one be most prepared for during due diligence? What are the critical factors that determine whether a deal succeeds or falls apart?
Necessities For a Good Deal
Josef Brunner:
That’s why I’m not a big fan of negotiating a term sheet separately from the business or technology itself. At Nutri, for example, when we acquire companies, we conduct due diligence before sending out a term sheet. I don’t want to be the kind of person who puts a term sheet on the table and then pulls out of the deal—it’s terrible, both ethically and emotionally, for everyone involved.
So, whether I’m selling a company or raising funds, I always insist on pre-term sheet due diligence. Of course, it requires more effort, but it also provides more confidence to the other party. If someone still decides to back out after that, well, I personally don’t respect that kind of behavior. That’s why, when we acquire companies, I try to approach things differently.
Josef Brunner:
Reputation matters in M&A. We live in a world where you can’t believe everything you read online, but public perception does shape an acquirer’s reputation. We discussed Google, Cisco, and other major tech companies—these firms know that a significant portion of their innovation comes from young companies. As a result, they are extremely mindful of their reputation within the founder ecosystem.
I sometimes feel that German and European companies could be more conscious of how their M&A reputation impacts their ability to attract the best deals.
Johan:
So, your approach is to issue a term sheet later in the process—after due diligence—because by then, the buyer already has all the necessary insights into the company. That eliminates uncertainty and allows both parties to align their motivations and expectations.
From your experience with buyers like Google, Cisco, and other U.S. companies, is that their standard approach? Or is the typical process more like what we often read about—first a commercial due diligence (DD) and LOI, followed by factual DD?
Josef Brunner:
That traditional structure is definitely the standard. But for U.S. firms, it works because they’re willing to take big bets. They’re not looking for perfection—they’re looking for potential.
The more mature a company becomes, and the more its value is based on fundamentals, the more critical financial and commercial due diligence becomes. That’s why I prefer to frontload due diligence before discussing a term sheet.
If it’s purely a technology acquisition—something Cisco and Google often pursue—then they usually test the technology first. There’s almost always some prior relationship or hands-on experience before any formal discussions begin. That makes a big difference.
Johan:
Right.
Josef Brunner:
Ultimately, it depends on the deal. But throughout the process, the key is to be as transparent as possible with your buyer—that way, you avoid surprises.
Johan:
Exactly.
Josef Brunner:
And just as importantly, you build trust.
Johan:
Yeah, and over time, that trust helps establish a lasting relationship and ensures you can leave your legacy behind.
Philip:
Looking at your exits, I know you don’t like to focus on the negatives, but in hindsight, are there things you would do differently today?
Josef Brunner:
Of course, there are things I would do differently—that’s part of life. You learn, you grow. But that doesn’t mean I have regrets or that I’m dissatisfied with my choices. It’s just that my priorities have evolved over time.
If I had to pick one major lesson, it would be this: I wouldn’t have sold so early.
I once sold a company that I later tried to buy back, but unfortunately, that didn’t work out. Looking back, I believe we should have taken the company public instead of selling it. That was one of the driving reasons behind taking Learn public—because if you truly believe in what you’ve built and it’s working, why sell it?
At the time, I had a different relationship with success and pain. I thought that more money would somehow change how I felt. But over time, I realized that wasn’t the case. My perspective shifted, and I understood that I love the journey—building companies, shaping culture. That’s why I wouldn’t sell so early again.
But ironically, I only arrived at this conclusion because I did sell too early. So in that sense, even my mistakes had their own value.
Johan:
You’ve been deeply involved in both the Berlin and San Francisco tech ecosystems, frequently speaking with top investors, renowned CEOs like John Chambers of Cisco, and many founders.
Given your experience, what’s your biggest piece of advice for founders who are either preparing for an exit or are in the middle of the process?
Josef Brunner:
Don’t work with bankers.
Johan:
I think we got that message loud and clear.
Josef Brunner:
[Laughs] I’m not here to bash bankers. There’s a reason they exist, and many of them do excellent work.
Johan:
Well, I don’t think we’ll be getting a sponsorship from an investment bank for The Big Exit Show anytime soon.
Philip:
Nope.
Johan:
Never.
Josef Brunner:
[Laughs] Look, it’s not about the bankers—it’s about me. I just like to be in control of the process. If anything I said came across as disrespectful, that wasn’t my intention.
Biggest Advice: Have a Sounding Board
Josef Brunner:
If I can own something and control it, I always will. So my number one piece of advice for first-time entrepreneurs selling their first company is to have a sounding board—a sparring partner who can provide advice, guidance, and sometimes even therapy. These processes are emotionally extremely challenging, especially the first time, and there’s a high likelihood they will be life-changing. You need to remain extremely composed throughout. You cannot afford to show negative emotions.
Josef Brunner:
Having someone you can call to vent, cry, seek advice, or draw strength from is incredibly important. Before you seek more legal, commercial, or process-related advice, have a friend who understands the mental toll.
Johan:
Like a mentor?
Josef Brunner:
Yes, a mentor is a good way to describe it.
Philip:
What is the best advice you’ve ever received regarding the exit process?
Josef Brunner:
I’ve received many important pieces of advice. On a personal level, one that stands out is to always strive to be the kind of person you want others to be. We are often quick to complain about how someone else behaves, but we should reflect on how we want them to behave and then apply that standard to ourselves. It makes life significantly easier.
Another valuable lesson came when I was not working for a few years. I was investing, but I felt lost and unhappy. During a lunch with Henry Kravis in New York, he shared something that profoundly impacted me. Henry, one of the founders of KKR, told me, “Josef, the secret to a long and happy life is to be a workaholic.” At 80 years old, he still had fire in his eyes. That advice resonated deeply with me.
I’ve also been advised to always act ethically. It seems obvious, but when building businesses, you constantly face decisions where you must choose between short-term personal gain and long-term integrity. The reality is, if you commit to acting ethically, you will have to say no to many things and make tough choices. Looking back, I realize that the most difficult situations I’ve faced were often due to moments when I prioritized short-term benefits over long-term stability and honesty.
Johan:
I completely relate to that, especially the long-term versus short-term trade-offs. Now, let’s take some questions from the audience.
Philip:
I have a question regarding the pre-terms of due diligence. Some founders fear that acquirers are only interested in spying on their product and roadmap rather than genuinely pursuing a deal. How can founders mitigate this risk?
Johan:
Let me rephrase for clarity. When you receive an early-stage term sheet, how do you prevent a potential buyer from extracting all your intellectual property and insights without following through on the acquisition?
Josef Brunner:
There are several ways to protect yourself. First, work with buyers who have a good reputation. Companies like Google and Cisco, for instance, have no interest in stealing ideas because the long-term damage to their reputation would be disastrous.
Second, always remember that execution is what truly makes a company successful. An idea or a roadmap alone means nothing. If you adopt that mindset, you might even consider sharing your roadmap publicly because you know you’ll out-execute anyone trying to copy you.
Third, Warren Buffett has a great piece of advice for his investment team: “Assume that everything discussed in the boardroom will be printed in your local newspaper tomorrow. If you’d still go through with it, do it. If it makes you hesitate, don’t.” This principle applies here as well. Trust your instincts—if something feels off, it probably is.
Johan:
One more question.
Philip:
What’s the best way for a founder to stay in control during an exit process, given the dynamics with buyers, shareholders, and legal frameworks?
Josef Brunner:
It all starts with choosing the right partners. The first investors and business angels you bring in should invest in you, not just your business. If they have that philosophy, it would be illogical for them to push you out—they should want to support you. So, choose your partners wisely, and the right ones will always have your back.
Johan:
I appreciate that you bring up Stoicism. I’ve been applying it for some time, and I find it easy when things are going well. But when things go wrong, it becomes much harder. Do you have any advice on maintaining Stoicism in tough times?
Josef Brunner:
Yes—constantly throw challenges at yourself. The sea will always get rough, and Stoicism truly proves its value in those moments. Many people, especially younger generations, are “sunshine sailors”—they thrive when things are smooth but struggle in storms.
Personally, I test myself with extreme challenges, like long winter hikes. It’s brutal, and there are dark moments, but it reinforces my belief that sticking to my principles will get me through anything.
I live by two convictions: If I can control something, I will. And resilience is key—no matter how many times I get knocked down, I will always get up. At some point, people stop fighting you because they realize you simply won’t quit.
Johan:
You’ve mentioned that a CEO’s role includes maintaining culture post-acquisition. What are your observations about what happens after a founder leaves?
Josef Brunner:
It depends on the type of acquisition. Some companies integrate you into their structure, which can dismantle your original team. This can lead to key people leaving because they’ve lost autonomy.
That’s why I admire companies like Cisco and Google. They understand that some people will leave, but instead of resisting it, they invest in those individuals again when they start new ventures. Cisco even had a group known as “The Mafia,” whom they kept reacquiring because they were so effective. John Chambers, Cisco’s former CEO, later invested his own money in them when he started his venture firm.
Johan:
Last two questions.
Audience member:
Looking back, would you change anything if you could be your 15-year-old self again?
Josef Brunner:
Yes and no. Yes, because I made mistakes—selling companies too early or partnering with the wrong people. But no, because those mistakes shaped me. Without them, I would have made even bigger mistakes later on. The scars remind me of what to avoid in the future.
Johan:
You emphasize both Stoicism and delegation. How do you balance control with giving responsibilities to others?
Josef Brunner:
It might seem contradictory, but it’s not. I don’t need to be involved in everything to have control—I just need to trust the right people. If I give them autonomy and they excel, I indirectly maintain control over the company’s success.
I also focus on succession planning. Every key role has a pipeline of potential successors. That way, if someone leaves or if something happens to me, the organization continues smoothly. True control isn’t micromanaging—it’s building a system that can sustain itself.
Johan:
Thank you for sharing all these insights!
Josef Brunner:
It was my pleasure. Thanks for having me.
Johan:
Thank you so much for listening to this episode of the Big Exit show. We hope you’ve enjoyed today. If so, please subscribe to our show on Spotify or your favorite podcast platform. If you have feedback or suggestions for guests that you want to see on the show, please send us a message to Podcast Capital. Thanks again for listening and I hope you’ll join us for the next episode.