Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday November 19 2019, @08:01PM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-while-the-getting-is-good? dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Uber's two co-founders have let go of some of the millions of shares they own in the ride-hailing company. Over the past two weeks, Travis Kalanick has sold more than 26 million shares, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That's nearly 27% of his stake in Uber, worth nearly $705 million based on today's stock price. And to a lesser degree, Garrett Camp has sold 510,000 shares, worth roughly $13.6 million.

Uber investors and employees were first able to sell their shares in the company two weeks ago when its initial public offering lockup period ended. While many early investors said they'd hold onto their shares, others flooded the market, causing Uber's stock to hit record lows.

The company's shares haven't traded higher than $27 since then -- roughly 40% lower than Uber's IPO price of $45.

[...] It isn't clear why Kalanick and Camp sold some of their shares; neither returned a request for comment. But they both still own large stakes in the company. Uber had roughly 1.7 billion shares when it went public, according to SEC filings. Of those, Kalanick still owns more than 71 million shares and Camp owns more than 73 million. They also both sit on Uber's board of directors.

[...] After six months of scandals -- including a #DeleteUber movement, allegations of a chaotic corporate culture that OK'd sexual harassment and a lawsuit brought by Waymo claiming Uber stole its self-driving car tech -- Kalanick was forced to step down. Current Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi came on two months later in August 2017.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:56AM (7 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:56AM (#922235) Journal

    Hmmm.... so the 1%-ers gobbled them already? The whole $20T [wikipedia.org] of them? That was quite fast, man.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20 2019, @08:37AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20 2019, @08:37AM (#922295)

    Legally, pension funds refer to almost all deferred compensation, regardless of actual form. Colloquially, it usually refers to defined-benefit retirement plans, which are relatively rare outside of certain industries due to being phased out for defined-contribution plans, such as 401(k)s and other vehicles. It is a common misconception for people to conflate the two definitions, and I usually see people (even those who should know better) use the more common defined-benefit definition instead of the broader legal one.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 20 2019, @09:32PM (3 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 20 2019, @09:32PM (#922626) Journal

      the more common defined-benefit definition instead of the broader legal one.

      In this world, Americans are, again, exceptional.
      If I may say so, not in the good sense too, no surprise here.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @07:58AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @07:58AM (#922898)

        Better double-check your statistics then. While it is true that most pensions currently in existence are defined-benefit, the vast majority of those are either public, closed, or actually hybrid systems. If you go by the number of current workers, most are covered under hybrid or defined-contribution plans (if they have one at all). The real last bastion of defined-benefit plans are public plans because the government-workers unions prefer them. All the other ones are rapidly dropping in number as they convert or have their members die off or both.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:28AM (1 child)

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 21 2019, @10:28AM (#922924) Journal

          Better double-check your statistics then.

          My statistics, you say?
          100% of them in Australia [wikipedia.org], where I live.

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @08:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 21 2019, @08:32PM (#923133)

            That Wikipedia article and superguide.com.au both state that most plans are defined-contribution plans. Or did you miss:

            Special rules apply in relation to employers operating "defined benefit" superannuation schemes, which are less common traditional employer funds where benefits are determined by a formula usually based on an employee's final average salary and length of service. Essentially, instead of minimum contributions, employers need to make contributions to provide a minimum level of benefit.

            But you don't have to take my word for it: https://www.superguide.com.au/retirement-planning/defined-benefit-fund-members-are-we-subject-to-contributions-caps [superguide.com.au] And besides, even if Australia were 100% defined-benefit, which it isn't, then its 0.5% of world population still isn't going to make much of a difference on the total percentages.

  • (Score: 2) by Common Joe on Wednesday November 20 2019, @06:51PM (1 child)

    by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday November 20 2019, @06:51PM (#922523) Journal

    I wouldn't dismiss Thexalon so fast.

    Using the Wikipedia link you gave, $19.1T - $4.5T (for the top 200 pension people, per Wikipedia) = $14.5T. The population back at the end of 2016 (source [census.gov]) was 324 million. $14.5T / 324M = about $45,000 for every man, woman, and child. Not every child will have a pension, so let's just be generous and say the average person has $100,000 nest egg.

    That is not enough to retire on. Not even close. Not even if you quadruple it.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 20 2019, @09:35PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 20 2019, @09:35PM (#922631) Journal

      So, the answer to the 'have 1%-ers gobbled up the retirement funds' question, the.answer is positive.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford