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.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19 2019, @08:22PM (1 child)
Sell off stock = something big.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20 2019, @01:00AM
The originating rats are heading for the exits. Even just a part of their shares is a fortune and they're set for life.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilsa on Tuesday November 19 2019, @08:22PM (1 child)
From my own experience during the dot com days, this sort of thing doesn't happen unless the co-founders know something we don't. They are selling off to make whatever money they can before the crap hits the proverbial fan.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19 2019, @08:53PM
Well, Its not very healthy EBITDA et al, and continuous need for financing maybe a good reason
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19 2019, @08:44PM (6 children)
Sure it is. They want real money in their pockets and want to hand off the risk to someone else.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 19 2019, @08:58PM (5 children)
That was my first thought too.
Yes it is. It's called cashing out. Gamblers do it all the time.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19 2019, @09:55PM (4 children)
To be fair, one cashed out.. the other did the prudent thing.
I think only a loon would leave 1+ billion in a firm, when one could pull 10% of 5% off.. and ensure they are rich forever.
But even 27% is hardly 'cashing out'. And he may have other interests.. maybe even other ideas and things he wants to invest that capital in.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 19 2019, @10:21PM (2 children)
If any of the founders look to sell 100% of their shares, (or even 75%) the share price will instantly drop to zero or near enough to make it not a good idea. They are definitely cashing out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:13PM (1 child)
Your premise makes no sense.
First, you say "IF" they sell 100% of their stock, price = 0. Of course, that's not true. Depends on how much stock they own, how fast they sell it, market belief in the company, and 100 things more. People have sold their shares, and the company's stock barely has a blip!
But OK.. there's SOME truth to what you say. Large stock sales CAN have a hit (not will, CAN!). OK.. so?
Now one guy sells 27%. You instantly infer that this means 'cashing out', due to some unknown formula that I'm sure every trader in existence would love to know. And this number is no where near 100%.
Further, the 'other guy' is selling a modest amount of shares. Yet because 'guy #1' is selling 27%, guy selling 10% is 'also cashing out', because if ONE founder sells 100%, they're "all caching out".
Yet NO founder even sold 100%.
Not sure where the logic flow is here.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday November 20 2019, @09:15PM
Whatever. Sounds like nitpicking.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:10AM
Three more times and they're cashed out. Large traders can lose quite a bit, if they trade it all at once.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Tuesday November 19 2019, @08:56PM (11 children)
Despite the rhetoric about "disruption", they were never anything other than an employee-abusing car service with a phone app. They were pretending that the phone app made them a hi-tech company, but really the only unusual thing about them was that they got away with shifting basically the entire burden of actually providing services to their customers onto their low-level employees (which they falsely claimed were independent contractors) for a long time.
So yeah, the fact that upper management is doing their best to take the money and run is a good sign as far as I'm concerned.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:13AM
That an the infrastructure to run the back end for that app. They are genuinely a high tech company.
Which, let us note, was accurate. Employee and contractor are both defined [soylentnews.org]. There are edge cases, but this wasn't one of them.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:42AM (9 children)
You so very sure your pension fund doesn't hold Uber stock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:49AM (8 children)
Pension fund? Pension fund?!? Nobody has one of those anymore.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:56AM (7 children)
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20 2019, @08:37AM (4 children)
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)
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)
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)
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
That Wikipedia article and superguide.com.au both state that most plans are defined-contribution plans. Or did you miss:
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)
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
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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 19 2019, @10:36PM
The rats are abandonning the ship. 'Nuff said.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jasassin on Tuesday November 19 2019, @11:43PM (1 child)
Yes it is. It's because the government is going to give them the proverbial bitchslap pretty soon. This [soylentnews.org] is just the beginning. Other states will follow suit and then Uber is fucked, and they know it. Their private contractor shenanigans are about to be put to an end.
jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 20 2019, @02:44AM
MAGAAA!
What would Trump say?